AN  OPINION  OF  COUNSEL 


ACTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  SYNOD 


OF    THE 


p  c. 


IN  THE  CASE  OF 


MR.  GEORGE  H.  STUART, 


DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  THE  FIRST  REFORMED  PRESBYTERIAN 
CONGREGATION  IN  THE  CITY  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 


Philadelphia,   Sept.,   l^OS 


§!uladdplua: 

JAS.  B.  RODGERS,  PRINTER,  52  AND  54  NORTH  SIXTH  STREET. 

1868. 


FROM   THE   LIBRARY   OF 
REV.    LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON,   D.  D 

BEQUEATHED    BY   HIM   TO 

THE   LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


\S 


armeA    "Pi-esb/i"er\o>v\   CViurcVi .    Que. 


AN  OPINION  OF  COUNSEL 


ON    THE 


ACTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  SYNOD   X^OGICAL  Stf-V 


NOV  6    193/ 


C  (*  (* 


IN  THE  CASE  OF 


MR.  GEORGE  H.  STUART, 


DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  THE  FIRST  REFORMED  PRESBYTERIAN 
CONGREGATION  IN  THE  CITY  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 


Philadelphia,   Sept.,   1868 


Philadelphia: 

JAS.  B.  RODGERS,  PRINTER,  52  AND  54  NORTH  SIXTH  STREET. 

1868. 


OPINION  OF  COUNSEL. 


We  have  carefully  considered  the  action  taken  by  the  Synod  of 
the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  at  its  late  Session  in  Pittsburg, 
in  the  case  of  Mr.  Stuart,  and  we  shall  proceed  to  state  the  con- 
clusions at  which  we  have  arrived. 

The  suspension  of  Mr.  Stuart  from  church  membership  and  from 
his  office  of  ruling  elder,  and  the  vacation  of  his  seat  in  Synod, 
were  sought  to  be  effected  by  the  passage  of  resolutions  reciting  the 
offence  and  the  law  supposed  to  be  violated  and  declaring  the  penalty 
to  be  inflicted.  Four  series  of  resolutions  were  introduced  for 
this  purpose,  the  last  of  which  only  was  passed. 

The  Synod,  as  a  legislative  body,  was  competent  to  vacate  Mr. 
Stuart's  seat  for  sufficient  cause,  but  not  for  any  cause  whatever 
to  deprive  him  of  church  membership  and  of  his  office  of  ruling 
elder.  Qnly  as  a  court  could  they  effect  that,  and  to  do  so  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  try,  convict,  and  sentence  him  in  accor- 
dance with  the  laws  they  were  constituted  to  administer. 

We  shall  consider  the  case  under  the  following  heads : 

1.  The  Charge. 

2.  The  Jurisdiction. 

3.  The  Process. 

I.  THE    CHARGE. 

The  resolutions,  which  were  passed,  charge  Mr.  Stuart  with  the 
commission  of  two  acts,  which  they  declare  to  be  offences  against 
the  well  known  and  established  laws  of  the  church.  They  are, 
first,  the  use  in  the  worship  of  God  "  of  imitations  and  uninspired 
compositions,  called  hymns ;"  secondly,  communion  uwith  others  in 
other  churches  in  sealing  ordinances." 

A  paper  was  also  presented  to  the  Synod,  properly  styled  a 
Libel,  purporting  to  be  signed  by  one  Ephraim  Young,  and  charg- 


ing   Mr.   Stuart  with   lying,  and  with   using  "  uninspired   hymns 
contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  church." 

The  libel  cannot  serve  as  the  foundation  of  the  resolutions,  for 
the  charges  contained  therein  are  not  identical  with  those  set  forth 
in  the  resolutions.  The  resolutions  make  no  mention  of  the  infa- 
mous charge  of  lying,  and  substitute  therefor  that  of  communing 
with  members  of  other  churches,  nor  does  their  statement  of  the 
charge  of  using  uninspired  hymns  agree  with  that  of  the  libel. 
The  libel  specifies  the  offence  as  that  of  using  such  compositions  in 
a  public  meeting  held  in  a  Baptist  Church,  while  the  resolutions 
are  so  vague  in  their  terms  as  to  leave  it  uncertain  whether  the 
offence  was  committed  in  the  religious  services,  public  or  private, 
of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  or  by  participation  in  the 
exercises  of  other  bodies.  Nor  is  their  statement  of  the  other 
charge,  that  of  communion  in  other  churches,  more  definite ;  for 
here  they  leave  it  uncertain  whether  the  offence  consisted  in 
adoring  the  Host  and  receiving  a  consecrated  wafer  from  the  hands 
of  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest,  or  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  an  Old  School  Presbyterian  Church.  The  vagueness  of  the 
resolutions  is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  for  as  no  libel  was  framed 
by  the  Synod,  no  evidence  adduced,  no  defence  permitted,  and  no 
formal  sentence  pronounced,  the  resolutions  constitute  the  whole 
record,  and  to  them  alone,  therefore,  can  we  look  for  a  statement 
of  the  offence  of  which  a  majority  of  the  Synod  have  pronounced 
Mr.  Stuart  guilty. 

We  do  not  propose  to  consider  the  question  whether  the  rules 
of  faith  and  practice  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  forbid 
absolutely,  and  on  all  occasions,  the  singing,  or  inciting  others  to 
sing,  uninspired  hymns,  and  the  participation  with  members  of 
other  Protestant  Churches  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that,  on  both  points,  the  teaching  of  the 
"  Declaration  and  Testimony"  of  the  church  and  the  utterances  of 
its  judicatories  are  not  clear  and  unambiguous,  and  that  the  prac- 
tice of  its  members,  both  clerical  and  lay,  has  not  been  of  sufficient 
uniformity  to  give  a  settled  construction  to  those  doubtful  enact- 
ments. 

There  was  an  objection  to  the  reception  and  consideration  of  the 
charges  against  Mr.  Stuart  which  the  Synod  overlooked.     Chapter 


III.,  Sec.  1,  §  7,  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Reformed  Presby- 
terian, Church  provides  that  "no  charge  shall  be  admitted  against 
"  any  member  of  the  church  unless  it  be  presented  within  one 
"  year,  in  case  of  private  members  or  ruling  elders  *  *  *  after  the 
"  facts  upon  which  the  charge  is  founded  have  come  to  the  know- 
pledge  of  the  accuser."  The  resolutions  were  general  in  their 
terms — they  specified  no  particular  act,  and  were  founded,  there- 
fore, not  on  any  particular  offence,  but  upon  an  alleged  habit.  In 
all  probability,  no  member  who  voted  for  them  could  say  that  the 
facts  upon  which  they  were  founded  had  come  to  his  knowledge 
within  one  year.  The  Book  of  Discipline,  therefore,  by  the  spirit, 
if  not  the  letter,  of  this  rule,  prohibited  the  Synod  from  entertain- 
ing the  charges. 

II.  THE   JURISDICTION. 

The  first  preamble  to  the  resolutions  affirms  the  original  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Synod  over  this  subject.  That  it  did  not  proceed  by  virtue 
of  its  appellate  jurisdiction  is  certain;  for  the  libel,  signed  by 
Ephraim  Young,  was  not  the  basis  of  the  synodical  action,  the 
charges  therein  not  agreeing  with  those  in  the  resolutions;  nor 
had  it  been  properly  presented  to  the  session  of  the  First  Church, 
and  brought  up  on  appeal.  The  Synod  must,  therefore,  have  taken 
cognizance  of  Mr.  Stuart's  alleged  offences  by  virtue  of  their  origi- 
nal jurisdiction,  which  is,  however,  not  unlimited.  The  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, (Chap.  III.,  Sec.  2,  §  1,)  restricts  that  jurisdiction  to  "  cases 
"  in  which  the  inferior  judicatories  are  remiss  in  the  exercise  of  dis- 
"  cipline,  or  otherwise  incapable  of  applying  a  remedy  to  an  open 
scandal."  But,  in  order  to  vest  jurisdiction  in  the  Synod,  some  evi- 
dence should  appear  on  the  record  of  that  remissness  or  incapability 
which  has  disqualified  the  lower  courts,  and  entitled  the  Synod  to  act 
originally;  or,  at  least,  there  ought  to  be  an  explicit  finding  by  the 
Synod,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  its  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  that 
those  facts  existed;  for  otherwise  the  limitation  on  the  Synod's  ju- 
risdiction would  be  wholly  ineffectual,  and  they  might  exercise  it  at 
their  will.  In  this  case  there  is  neither  allegation  nor  evidence  of 
such  remissness  or  incapability  on  the  part  of  the  lower  courts. 
There  is  simply,  in  the  first  preamble  to  the  resolutions,  a  very 
general  claim  to  "original  as  well  as  appellate  jurisdiction  over  all 


6 

"persons  and  all   matters  affecting  the   general  interests  of  the 
"church  under  its  supervision  and  care." 

We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  the  Synod  had  not  jurisdiction, 
either  original  or  appellate,  of  Mr.  Stuart's  case. 

III.  THE   PROCESS. 

Even  if  the  Synod  could  properly  have  taken  jurisdiction  of  the 
case,  the  defects  of  their  process  were  fatal  to  the  validity  of  the 
proceedings.  Contrasting  their  proceedings,  in  this  case,  with  the 
rules  for  trials  as  laid  down  in  the  2d  section  of  the  3d  chapter 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  it  seems  to  be  doubtful  whether  those 
who  voted  with  the  majority  in  Synod  had  read  that  chapter. 

It  directs : 

That  the  judicatory  shall  present  a  libel  to  the  party  accused,  spe- 
cifying the  time  and  place  of  the  offence  and  "  allowing  the  accused ' ' 
if  he  himself  desire  it,  at  least  one  week  to  prepare  for  "trial."  §  5. 

That  the  judicatory  shall  not  proceed,  in  the  absence  of  the 
accused,  until  he  shall  have  been  cited  three  several  times,  at  such 
intervals  of  time,  as  shall  be  reasonable  to  grant  him,  and  shall 
have  been  served  with  a  copy  of  the  libel.  §  7. 

That  upon  the  appearance  of  the  accused,  the  charge  shall  be 
read  to  him,  and,  if  necessary,  explained  by  the  Moderator.  §  8. 

That  the  accused,  if  he  put  himself  upon  his  defence,  shall  be  al- 
lowed to  use  all  lawful  means  to  clear  himself  of  the  imputation.  §  9. 

That  witnesses  shall  be  summoned,  be  examined,  if  either  party 
so  require,  under  oath,  and,  in  all  possible  cases,  in  the  presence 
of  the  accused.  §  §  10  and  11. 

It  is  directed  in  the  IV.  chap,  that,  if  found  guilty  and 
ordered  to  be  suspended,  sentence  of  suspension  shall  be  publicly 
pronounced  by  the  Moderator.   Sec.  I.  §  3. 

In  this  case  no  libel  was  framed  nor  presented  to  Mr.  Stuart. 
Three  sets  of  resolutions  were  introduced  They  were  vague  and  in- 
definite in  their  charges,  and  specified  neither  the  nature,  time,  nor 
place,  of  the  offence.  Nor  was  a  copy  of  any  one  of  these  resolutions 
furnished  to  the  accused.  One  hour's  notice  was  given  him  of  the 
taking  of  the  final  vote,  at  a  time,  when,  it  is  supposed,  every  mem- 
ber of   Synod   knew  that  he  was  ill  and  unable  to  be  present. 


Mr.  Stuart  put  himself  upon  his  defence  and  filed  a  formal  denial 
of  the  charges  in  manner  and  form  as  alleged.  No  witnesses  were 
examined  either  for  the  prosecution  or  the  defence.  No  sentence 
of  suspension  was  publicly  pronounced  by  the  Moderator. 

Considered  as  a  whole,  this  record,  in  our  opinion,  exhibits  so 
great  a  departure  from  the  requirements  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
and  from  the  established  principles  of  jurisprudence,  as  to  render 
the  proceedings  entirely  invalid. 

CHRIS.  STUART  PATTERSON, 
WILLIAM  A.  PORTER. 

Philadelphia,  July,  1868. 


DOCUMENTS. 


The  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  com- 
menced its  sessions  in  Pittsburg,  May  20th,  1868.  On  the  following 
day,  May  21st,  an  organization  was  effected,  which  was  regarded  as 
unconstitutional,  and  the  following  protest  entered  against  it : 

[A.] 

PROTEST. 

The  subscribers  respectfully  protest  against  the  organization  of 
the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  at  its 
sessions  in  Pittsburg,  commencing  May  20th,  1868,  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

1st.  Because,  in  the  organization  of  said  Synod,  the  delegation 
of  a  Presbytery,  to  wit :  the  Second  Reformed  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  was  admitted,  its  delegates  were  entered  on  the  roll, 
allowed  to  vote,  and  one  of  them  was  elected  moderator,  although 
the  Synod  had  no  official  knowledge  whatever  of  the  organization 
or  existence  of  said  Presbytery. 

2d.  Because  it  was  alleged,  and  certified  evidence  of  the  fact  was 
ready,  and  would  have  been  given  if  allowed,  that  the  said  Second 
Presbytery,  applying  for  admission,  was  not  the  Presbytery  which 
Synod  authorized  and  directed  to  be  constituted,  inasmuch  as  said 
Presbytery  had,  without  authority,  taken  under  its  jurisdiction  the 
Third  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  a  congregation, 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
which  had  never  been  dismissed  by  that  Presbytery,  and  which  said 
Second  Presbytery  had  received  under  its  jurisdiction,  without  any 
authority  whatever  from  Synod,  and  without  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  the  Presbytery,  to  which  it  properly  and  lawfully  be- 
longed. 

3d.  Because,  when  an  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the 
moderator,  that  it  was  in  order  to  accept  and  enroll  the  delegates 


of  the  said  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the  moderator  re- 
fused to  put  the  appeal,  although  rule  25  of  the  rules  for  General 
Synod  and  other  judicatories,  expressly  states  that,  "  if  any  member 
feels  aggrieved  by  any  decision  of  the  moderator,  he  may  appeal  to 
the  judicatory,  stating  reasons:"  such  appeal  being  allowed  by  all 
parliamentary  and  ecclesiastical  usage,  and  at  the  last  meeting  of 
this  Synod,  in  New  York,  1867,  an  appeal  being  twice  admitted 
and  put,  in  circumstances  precisely  similar,  to  wit,  while  the 
question  of  organization  was  pending. 

4th.  Because  an  organization,  by  the  choice  of  officers,  could  not 
properly  be  effected  until  the  members  were  ascertained,  and  until 
the  right  of  any,  whose  claim  was  contested,  was  decided,  for  which 
purpose  the  moderator  and  clerk  of  the  preceding  Synod  remain  in 
office  and  exercise  their  functions,  so  that  the  court  may  be  able  to 
act  in  an  orderly  manner  on  such  a  subject. 

5th.  Because  the  certificate  of  a  Presbytery  is  to  be  considered 
as  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  right  to  sit  as  a  member  only  when 
such  certificate  is  not  disputed  for  reasons  assigned :  since  tases  might 
occur,  and  have  occurred,  where  an  improper  number  of  delegates, 
or  persons  not  regarded  as  having  standing  in  the  church,  are 
commissioned,  as  when  Rev.  Wm.  Wilson,  minister,  and  Thomas 
Wilson  and  W.  Taylor,  elders,  were  not  allowed  to  sit  in  Synod  as 
delegates  from  the  Pittsburg  Presbytery,  (see  minutes,  1850,)  their 
claim  to  sit,  although  duly  certified,  having  been  challenged  by 
Rev.  A.  W.  Black :  and  it  is  evident  that  the  allowing  all  who  are 
certified  to  sit,  might  take  the  control  of  the  Synod  out  of  the 
hands  of  these  to  whom  it  truly  .belongs,  and  give  it  to  an  illegal 
and  unconstitutional  majority  when  really  a  minority. 

6th.  Because  the  said  Second  Reformed  Presbytery  having  un- 
constitutionally received  the  Third  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
Philadelphia,  while  the  said  congregation  was  legally  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  another  Presbytery,  and  having  thereby  vitiated  its 
own  organization,  and  thus  ceased  to  be  the  Presbytery  authorized 
by  Synod,  the  admission  of  the  delegates  of  said  Presbytery  to 
Synod  violates  the  constitution  and  order  of  the  church,  and  vitiates 
the  organization  of  this  Synod. 

7th.  Because  by  the  admission  of  said  delegates  of  said  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  a  practical  sanction  is  given  to  acts  of 


10 


gross  disorder,  utterly  subversive  of  the  essential  principles  of  Pres- 
byterian polity:  for,  if  the  act  of  said  Second  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  receiving  said  Third  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
Philadelphia,  under  its  care  be  allowed,  said  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  might  receive,  under  its  care,  any  congregation  of 
any  other  Presbytery  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  said 
other  Presbytery,  and  without  the  authority  of  Synod,  and  thus  said 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  might  extend  itself  to  all  parts 
of  the  Church,  and  appropriate  congregations  from  any  other 
Presbytery  interfering  in  their  just  jurisdiction,  and  inciting  and 
fomenting  disorder  and   division  throughout  all  the  church. 

8th.  Because,  by  this  action  of  Synod,  the  just  rights  of  the 
Philadelphia  Reformed  Presbytery  were  practically  violated,  and 
the  act  of  a  congregation,  which  was  grossly  disorderly,  was  prac- 
tically approved  and  ratified,  and  that  without  any  investigation 
whatever. 

9th.  Because  the  constitution  of  Synod,  which  requires  that  the 
delegates  from  each  Presbytery  shall  be  persons  under  the  lawful 
jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery,  which  sends  them,  was  violated  by 
the  admission  of  a  person  as  a  delegate  from  the  Second  Reformed 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  who  was  an  elder  of  a  congregation 
not  lawfully  under  the  jurisdiction  of  said  Presbytery. 
Saml.  Wylie,  A.  G.  McAuley, 

T.  W.  J.  Wylie,  R.  H.  MacMuhn, 

Geo.  H.  Stuart,  W.  Sterrett, 

Bexj.  Miller,  Robt.  McMillan, 


John  McMillan, 


Geo.  Scott, 


John  F.  Hill. 


On  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  when  the  Minutes  were  read, 
it  appeared  that  the  objections  made  against  the  organization  of 
the  Synod  had  not  been  fairly  and  fully  stated,  and  when  the 
court  refused  to  allow  the  statement  of  the  person  who  presented 
the  objections  to  be  entered  on  the  record  in  his  own  language,  the 
following  Protest  was  presented : 


11 

[B.] 

PKOTEST  AGAINST  MINUTES. 

The  subscribers  respectfully  protest  against  the  action  of  Gene- 
ral Synod  in  adopting  the  following  record  of  its  proceedings,  to 
wit: 

"  When  the  certificate  of  delegation  from  the  Second  Reformed 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the  last  presented,  was  read,  Rev.  Dr. 
Wylie  objected  to  it,  as  the  Presbytery  was  unconstitutionally 
organized." — 

Because  it  was  explicitly  and  repeatedly  denied  that  it  was 
stated  that  the  Second  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  had 
been  unconstitutionally  organized,  but  it  was  affirmed : 

1.  That  the  Synod  had  no  official  and  sufficient  knowledge  that 
said  Presbytery  had  been  organized,  and 

2,  (the  foregoing  objection  being  overruled),  that  the  said  Pres- 
bytery was  at  the  present  time  unconstitutional,  because  it  had 
vitiated  its  organization  by  the  admission  of  a  congregation  prop- 
erly belonging  to  another  Presbytery,  without  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  the  Presbytery,  to  whose  jurisdiction  it  properly  belonged, 
and  of  this  Synod. 

A.  G.  McAuley,  Samuel  Wylie, 

R.  H.  MacMunn,  Benj.  Miller, 

W.  Sterrett,  T.  W.  J.  Wylie, 

Geo.  H.  Stuart,  John  McMillan, 

John  F.  Hill,  Geo.  Scott, 

Robt.  McMillan, 


On  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  May  22,  as  Synod  was  about  tev 
adjourn,  the  stated  clerk  announced  that  several  papers  were  on 
the  table,  which  he  proceeded  to  read,  without  stating  by  whom 
or  how  they  were  presented,  and  notwithstanding  objection  was 
made  to  their  reception  as  entirely  out  of  order.  These  papers 
are  as  follows: 


12 


[No.  I.] 


REMONSTRANCE 


We,  the  undersigned,  Elders,  Trustees  and  members  of  the  First 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  appear  in  General 
Synod  as  remonstrants,  and  ask  for  such  relief  from  existing 
grievances  as  your  venerable  Court  can  give,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons, viz. : 

1st.  At  a  congregational  meeting,  duly  held  on  the  6th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1868,  the  following  persons  were  elected  a  Board  of  Trustees 
for  the  current  year : — George  Gordon,  Ephraim  Young,  Robert 
C.  Taylor,  John  Biggerstaff,  James  Stewart,  James  Graham,  and 
Thomas  Johnston.  On  the  following  Monday  the  new  Board  met 
and  organized.  The  last  two  declined  to  serve  with  the  new 
Board,  and  they,  in  connection  with  two  other  members  of  the  old 
Board,  changed  the  locks  upon  the  doors  and  gates  of  the  church 
property,  and,  claiming  still  to  be  recognized  as  the  Board  de  facto, 
took  possession  of  the  property  in  this  summary  way,  thereby 
usurping  the  functions  of  a  Board,  and  interfering  with  the  election 
held  according  to  the  charter  and  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  con- 
gregation. 

2d.  At  another  congregational  meeting,  held  February  13th, 
1868,  for  the  purpose,  as  was  alleged,  of  hearing  a  report  from  the 
session  and  members  of  the  old  Board,  respecting  the  list  of 
electors,  it  was  found  that  these  self-constituted  revisors  of  the  list 
liad  declared  127  persons  to  have  voted  illegally.  When  the 
names  of  these  persons  were  called  for,  they  were  refused,  and 


13 

the  chairman  of  the  meeting,  after  putting  the  motion  for  the 
acceptance  of  the  report,  declared  it  to  be  carried,  although  a 
large  majority  wte  opposed  to  it,  and  refused  to  be  a  party  to 
cutting  off  127  persons,  whose  names  were  not  given,  and  who,  for 
aught  that  appeared  to  the  contrary,  had  as  good  a  right  to  vote 
as  those  who  declared  their  votes  illegal. 

3d.  Seeing  no  way  open  by  which  to  recover  their  rights,  as  the 
majority  of  the  session  and  its  moderator  seemed  to  have  agreed 
to  do  what  they  could  to  deprive  them  of  the  same,  the  new  Board 
resorted  to  a  civil  tribunal  for  redress,  while,  in  the  meantime,  an  in- 
junction was  obtained  restraining  the  new  Board  from  the  exercise 
of  its  functions  about  the  property,  through  the  exaggerated  and 
sworn  statements  of  the  pastor  and  others  in  regard  to  what  might 
transpire  in  the  event  of  the  new  Board  collecting  pew  rents. 

4th.  After  the  suit  in  equity  had  been  commenced,  in  order  that 
all  occasion  for  reflection  might  be  removed,  and  a  way  opened  up 
for  prevention  of  further  litigation,  the  new  Board  proposed  to 
leave  the  whole  matter  to  arbitration,  the  conditions  being  that 
both  parties  should  choose  each  three  disinterested  ruling  elders 
from  the  Reformed  and  United  Presbyterian  Churches,  and  that 
these  were  to  choose  a  seventh ;  and  that  both  parties  should  sign 
a  paper  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators.  This  proposi- 
tion, with  others  previously  made,  was  scornfully  rejected,  and  it 
thus  became  painfully  evident  that  those  holding  illegal  control  of 
the  property  did  not  desire  either  justice  or  a  peaceable  settle- 
ment. 

5th.  Notwithstanding  earnest  remonstrances  and  protests,  the 
majority  of  the  session,  encouraged  by  the  moderator,  have,  since 
the  difficulties  commenced,  been  pursuing  a  course  calculated  to 
destroy  the  comfort  of  the  majority  of  the  congregation,  fan  the 
flame  of  discord,  and,  unless  arrested,  tending  to  drive  from  the 
congregation  the  oldest  and  staunchest  friends  of  the  Church. 

6th.  The  majority  of  the  Session,  instead  of  acting  towards  the 
congregation  as  a  Court  of  Christ,  and  endeavoring  to  calm  the 
troubled  waters,  have  commenced  a  series  of  libelous  proceedings 
against  members  of  the  same  session,  and  members  of  the  congre- 
gation, who  differ  with  them  on  matters  of  principle.  These  pro- 
ceedings have  been  conducted,  for  the  most  part,  in  secret  session 


14 

against  the  earnest  wishes  of  the  accused.  In  these  secret  con- 
claves two,  among  the  oldest  members  of  Session,  have  been  ty- 
rannically subjected  to  the  unrighteous  sentence  of  suspension  from 
the  exercise  of  office  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  privilege  of  mem- 
bership, without  libel,  citation  or  trial.  These  unjust  and  un- 
scrupulous acts,  recounted,  were  greatly  aggravated  and  intensified 
by  the  pastor's  availing  himself  of  his  official  position  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  from  the  pulpit  to  give  a  detailed  one-sided  statement  of 
secular  matters  connected  with  the  civil  suit,  accompanied  with  an 
unfair  and  disingenuous  reference  to  four  respectable  members  of 
the  Church,  one  of  whom  was  specially  singled  out,  and  an  attempt 
made  to  cover  his  name  with  infamy  in  the  presence  of  the  assem- 
bled congregation.  Thus  the  thrones  of  Israel,  instead  of  being 
thrones  of  public  interest  and  impartial  justice,  have  been  con- 
verted into  star  chambers,  where  character  is  murdered  in  the  dark, 
and  the  friends  of  truth,  order  and  principle  are  persecuted  and 
held  up  to  ridicule  for  their  fidelity  to  their  covenanted  engage- 
ments. 

7th.  It  is  believed  by  your  remonstrants  that  the  difficulties  with 
which  we  are  now  beset  might  be  arrested  by  the  faithful  exercise 
of  discipline  upon  some  of  those  in  the  congregation,  who,  having 
lost  their  sympathy  with  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  are, 
by  a  repetition  of  disorderly  acts,  aiming  to  accomplish  their  des- 
truction. It  is  currently  reported  that  the  pastor  of  the  congre- 
gation joined  in  the  dispensation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  New 
School  Presbyterian  congregation,  under  the  care  of  Rev.  W.  T. 
Wylie,  Newcastle,  Pa.  Also,  that  he  cooperated  with  an  Old 
School  Presbytery  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  an  act  of  ordination 
under  peculiarly  aggravated  circumstances.  And  it  is  a  well  au- 
thenticated fact  that  he  has  repeatedly  announced  as  matter  of 
praise  uninspired  compositions,  popularly  styled  hymns,  thus  as  we 
conceive  violating  the  standards  of  the  Church,  his  ordination  and 
other  vows,  and  following  divisive  courses. 

As  it  will  appear  from  the  above  rehearsal  that  we  can  expect 
no  redress  from  the  session  of  the  congregation — and  when  some  of 
us  applied  for  redress  by  appeal  to  our  Presbytery,  we  were  re- 
fused a  hearing,  the  moderator  from  the  chair  declaring  that  we 
had  no  right  to  protest  or  appeal,  not  being  members  of  court,  and 


15 

recognizing  your  original,  as  well  as  appellate,  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church — we  ask  you  in  the  name  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  to 
interpose  your  authority,  and  give  us  such  relief  as  you  may  deem 
proper. 

8th.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  from  all  that  has  taken  place  in 
this  Church  during  the  last  few  years,  that  the  foundation  of  our 
difficulties  lies  in  a  difference  of  sentiment  in  regard  to  Psalmody 
and  Communion.  Believing,  therefore,  that  it  is  in  the  power  of 
your  venerable  body  to  give  effect  to  your  decisions  on  these  mat- 
ters, we  earnestly  and  humbly  ask  you,  not  only  to  abide  by  the 
standards  as  they  are,  but  to  call  to  an  account  those  who  are 
troubling  this  congregation  by  their  tyranny  in  ruling,  their  defec- 
tion in  principle  and  their  disorderly  practices. 

[The  following  list  of  signatures  to  the  Remonstrance  is  taken 
from  the  Minutes  of  the  recent  Synod,  with  corrections  of  supposed 
typographical  errors,  and  the  omission  of  names  withdrawn  by 
request,  as  being  obtained  by  incorrect  representations  of  the  nature 
of  the  document,  and  in  a  number  of  instances  attached  to  it  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  the  persons  themselves.  It  appears  that  of 
those  whose  names  were  appended  4  were  under  suspension,  4  un- 
der process,  13  dismissed,  6  duplicated,  44  withdrawn,  and  2  un- 
known,— a  total  of  73  improperly  added  :] 

Elders.  —  Robert  Guy  [suspended],  A.  S.  McMurray  [sus- 
pended]. 

Trustees. — George  Gordon  [under  process],  Ephraim  Young 
[under  process],  James  Stewart,  Robert  C.  Taylor  [under  process], 
John  Biggerstaff. 

Members.  —  Samuel  McGonegal,  Mary  McGonegal,  Annie 
McGonegal,  Eliza  Noble,  Samuel  McMullen,  Hannah  McMullen, 
Letitia  Gordon,  Matilda  Cochran,  James  Montgomery,  Rachel 
Montgomery,  Mary  J.  Taylor,  Samuel  Berk  [?  Beck],  Martha  A. 
Berk  [?  Beck],  Sarah  C.  Boyd,  David  W.  McElroy,  Jane  McElroy, 
Mary  A.  Gordon  [?  Jordan],  John  McLure,  Jane  McLure,  Mar- 
garet Dysart,  Mary  Rodgers  [duplicate],  Robert  Jordan,  Eliza 
Jordan,  Charles  Williams,  Robert  Johnston,  Robert  Alexander, 
Matthew  Cook,  Mary  Cook,  Jane  Johnson,  Matilda  Garrett,  Thomas 
Pollock  [dismissed],  Jane  Pollock,  Catharine  Donaghy,  Robert 
Fletcher,  Ann  J.  Fletcher,  Mary  Fletcher,  Rose  A.  Conner,  Wil- 


16 

liam  Graham,  Mary  Graham,  Robert  Lithgow,  David  Donaghy, 
Lizzie  Donaghy.  Margaret  Alexander,  Mary  A.  Alexander,  Mag- 
gie Alexander,  Hugh  Tait,  Catharine  Tait,  William  J.  Jackson, 
Robert  Robinson,  Sarah  Cannon,  Jane  Cannon,  Eliza  Cannon, 
Alex.  Gamble,  Isabella  Gamble,  Bella  Gamble,  Bella  Moore,  James 
Smyth,  Jane  Smyth,  James  Richie,  Jane  Richie,  George  Richie 
[dismissed],  Mary  Richie  [dismissed],  Mrs.  Mary  Richie,  James 
McLeod,  Ann  McLeod,  Margery  Williams,  Jane  Williams.  Marga- 
ret Williams,  Anna  Williams,  William  Archibald,  Elizabeth  Archi- 
bald. Samuel  White,  Elizabeth  White,  William  Mcllvain,  Elizabeth 
Mcllvain,  Isabella  Yallier,  John  Tait,  Frances  Tait.  Robert  Jack- 
son. Jane  Jackson,  John  Stewart  [under  charges].  Hannah  Adam- 
son  [dismissed].  Ellen  Andrews  [dismissed].  Jane  Patterson  [?  John], 
A.  Jane  Stewart,  Martha  Stewart,  Jane  Hamilton.  Mrs.  Ellen  T. 
McMurray.  Sarah  J.  McMurray,  Mrs.  Eliza  Jane  Mitchell.  A.  Ma- 
tilda Mitchell,  Mrs.  M.  M.  Pollock  [?  Kollock],  Nancy  Pollock,  Wil- 
liam Mooney.  Jane  Mooney.  Margaret  Mooney,  Jane  Smith.  Maggie 
D.  McDowell,  Mary  A.  Smith,  Mrs.  Mary  Matson,  Mary  0.  Mat- 
son,  Margaret  J.  Arbuckle,  Elizabeth  Potter,  Mary  Ann  Miller, 
Jane  Xeely,  Jane  Potter,  Martha  Biggerstaff.  John  A.  R.  McLeod, 
Alex.  Stewart,  Mary  Stewart,  John  Kane,  Matthew  Haggerty, 
Ellen  T.  Haggerty,  Martha  Crane  [?  Crozier],  Mrs.  Rosa  C.  Richie, 
Margaret  Morrison,  Martha  A.  Stewart,  Sophia  A.  Lougheady 
Rachel  Alcorn  [dismissed].  Mattie  Alcorn  [dismissed].  Mrs.  Isabella 
Sirte  [?  Sixte],  Mrs.  Isabella  Cook  [dismissed],  Elizabeth  Tamon 
[?  Lamon].  Charlotte  Allen,  Margaret  Xolen,  Barbara  Richards, 
Mary  A.  Gibson,  Margaret  Huston  [dismissed],  Letitia  Simpson, 
John  Hagerty,  Mary  A.  Love,  Jane  Morison,  George  Thompson, 
Anna  E.  Thompson,  Robert  Black,  Margaret  A.  Black,  James 
Kerr.  Ann  E.  Kerr,  Elizabeth  Stewart,  Elizabeth  Phair,  Barbara 
Graham,  Rebecca  Young,  Andrew  Christie  [dismissed],  Annie 
Christie,  Isabella  J.  Christie,  Isabella  Taylor,  Maggie  H.  Scott, 
Daniel  Boyd,  James  Boyd,  David  Donaghue  [?  Donaghy,  dupli- 
cate]. Eliza  Donaghue  [?  Donaghy,  duplicate],  Margaret  Egan, 
George  Thompson  [duplicate],  Eliza  A.  Thompson  [duplicate], 
William  Campbell,  Andrew  Lockhart,  Ann  Lockhart,  Sarah  Lock- 
hart,  Eliza  J.  Lockhart,  John  Johnson,  Letitia  Johnson,  Martha 
Cromie,  Thomas  Cromie,  Elizabeth  Miller,   Robert  White,  Martha 


IT 

White,  William  Jackson,  Sr.,  Margaret  Gray,  H.  McConnell,  A. 
McConnell,  Thos.  McCandless,  Jane  Orr,  Margaret  Graham,  Mary 
Haggerty,  Ann  Haggerty,  Henry  Humphries  [suspended],  Mary 
Humphries  [suspended],  Robert  Humphries,  Mary  Ann  Hum- 
phries, John  A.  Anderson,  Maggie  Anderson,  Mrs.  Wm.  Brewster, 
Annie  Crow,  Mary  A.  Crow,  Mr.  S.  Gray  [?  Mrs.],  Miss  S.  Gray, 
Charles  Gray,  David  Foster  [unknown],  Mary  A.  Crawford,  Wil- 
liam Neely,  Mary  Ann  Neely,  Margaret  Mackey,  Dorcas  Mackey, 
Ellen  Watson,  William  YanCent  [?  VanZant],  Jane  VanCent 
[?  VanZant],  Andrew  Moore,  Jane  E.  Burrell  [?  Russell],  Eliza- 
beth Kerr,  Jane  Forsythe,  Eliza  J.  Wiyine  [?  Wayne],  James  Ful- 
lerton,  John  Gibson,  Elizabeth  Gibson,  James  Taylor  [dismissed], 
Letitia  Taylor,  Elizabeth  Taylor,  Mary  Rodgers,  Jane  Mier  [?  Wier], 
Ann  McTrusly  [?  McTrusty],  Mrs.  Emma  McLaughlin,  Daniel 
Love,  Mary  J.  Love,  Eliza  McKay,  Sr.,  A.  J.  McKay,  Margaret 
McKay,  Hugh  McKay,  Eliza  McKay,  Mrs.  McKelvey  [unknown], 
William  Lithgood  [?  Lithgow],  Jane  Lithgood  [?  Lithgow],  Samuel 
Boyd  [dismissed],  Jane  Boyd  [dismissed],  Robert  A.  Johnson, 
Eliza  Johnson,  Catharine  Lindsay,  Ellen  Kerr,  James  Orr,  Hannah 
Orr,  Ann  Jane  Orr,  Joseph  Drake,  Martha  G.  Drake. 

[Paper  No.  II.  being  a  Memorial  against  the  proposed  union  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches,  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  is  not  in- 
cluded in  these  documents.] 

[No.  III.] 

LIBEL. 

Whereas  lying  and  corrupting  the  worship  of  God,  thus  following 
divisive  courses,  are  sins  against  God,  and  a  scandal  to  His  church ; 
and  whereas  you,  George  H.  Stuart,  are  charged  with  said  sins 
and  scandals,  by  Ephraim  Young,  therefore  you  should  be  pro- 
ceeded against  by  the  censures  of  the  house  of  God,  designed  as 
these  are  for  your  edification,  and  not  for  your  destruction.  The 
specifications  of  the  charges  against  you  are,  that  on  the  13th  of 
January,  1868,  or  thereabouts,  in  the  First  Ref.  Pres.  Church, 
Philada.,  you  were  guilty  of  lying  in  the  following  particulars,  viz.: 
While  the  lately  elected  Board  of  Trustees  of  said  church  were 
leaving  the  lecture-room  after  having  organized  according  to  the 
2 


18 

provisions  of  the  charter,  you  shook  your  fist  in  the  face  of  Robert 
C.  Taylor,  and  demanded  from  him  the  keys,  with  the  threat  that 
if  he  did  not  give  them  up  you,  Geo.  H.  Stuart,  had  a  writ  filled  in 
your  hand,  an  officer  at  the  door,  and  would  in  three  minutes  have 
him  locked  up;  and,  further,  when  Win.  Ray,  President  of  the  late 
Board,  immediately  afterwards  made  formal  demand  for  the  keys, 
you,  Geo.  H.  Stuart,  did  state  that  you  would  give  Robt.  C.  Tay- 
lor another  opportunity  to  give  up  the  keys,  and  again  did  threaten 
to  have  him  locked  up  in  Moyamensing  that  night  if  you  had  money 
enough  to  do  it;  or  words  to  this  effect.  And,  further,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  Session  of  said  church,  held  in  the  pastor's  study,  Jan.  23d, 
1868,  or  thereabouts,  you,  George  H.  Stuart,  did  positively  deny, 
in  presence  of  the  Session,  that  you  had  used  the  language  above 
specified  in  this  libel. 

Witnesses:  George  Gordon,  John  Bigger  staff,  Robert  C.  Taylor, 
James  Stuart,  John  M.  Kolloch,  M.  D. 

And,  further,  you,  Geo.  H.  Stuart,  did  on  March  10th,  1868, 
in  the  Baptist  Church,  corner  of  Broad  and  Arch  Sts.,  Philada., 
give  out  as  chairman  of  the  meeting,  uninspired  hymns,  contrary 
to  the  standards  of  this  church,  thus  corrupting  divine  worship, 
and  acting  in  a  manner  calculated  to  produce  alienation  and  dis- 
sension among  brethren.  Witnesses  :  John  Martin,  John  Cham- 
bers, Mrs.  Mary  M'Bride,  Miss  Lizzie  M'Bride,  John  Tait. 
With  all  this  you  are  charged,  and  an  opportunity  is  now  offered 
of  presenting  your  defense,  if  any  such  you  have  to  make. 

EPHRAIM  YOUNG. 
Philada.,  April  2Bd,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified  by 

John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 

[No.  IV.] 

LIBEL. 

Whereas  corrupting  divine  worship,  following  divisive  courses, 
and  tying,  are  sins  against  God  and  a  scandal  to  his  church,  and 
whereas  you  W.  J.  Chambers  are  charged  with  said  sins  and  scan- 


19 

dais,  by  Geo.  Gordon,  therefore  you  should  be  proceeded  against 
by  the  censures  of  the  house  of  God,  designed  as  these  are  for  your 
edification,  and  not  for  your  destruction.  The  specifications  of  the 
charges  against  you,  are  that  while  conducting  the  worship  of  God 
in  the  Wylie  Mission  Sabbath  School  of  the  1st  Ref.  Pres.  Church, 
in  South  street  below  Thirteenth,  Phila.,  of  which  you  were  lately 
superintendent,  you  used  uninspired  hymns,  contrary  to  the  8th 
section  of  the  24th  chap,  of  our  Testimony. 

Witnesses,  Abraham  Walker,  Charles  Williams,  Jr.,  Miss  Mar- 
garet Williams,  Miss  Lizzie  Kerr  and  Francis  McBride. 

And  further,  that  in  January  1867,  or  thereabout  you  boasted  to 
a  brother,  that  you  would  revolutionize  this  church,  thus  declaring 
your  purpose  to  violate  your  ordination  vow.  Witnesses,  Wm.  B. 
Hill,  John  Tait,  David  Hazel,  Robt.  Jordan  and  Robt.  Alexander. 

And  further,  that  when  you  were  charged  with  this  in  a  congre- 
gational meeting,  held  in  the  1st  Ref.  Pres.  Church,  Phila.,  on  the 
20th  of  Nov.,  1867,  or  thereabouts,  you  publicly  denied  that  you 
had  so  boasted. 

Witnesses,  William  Mcllwain,  Robt.  Jordan,  John  Tait,  David 
Hazel,  James  Smith,  Robert  Alexander. 

With  all  this  you  are  charged,  and  an  opportunity  is  now  offered 
of  presenting  your  defense,  if  any  such  you  have  to  make. 

GEORGE  GORDON. 

Philadelphia,  April  23,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  is  certified  by 

John  N.  McLeod,  Clerk. 

[No.  V.] 
LIBEL. 

Whereas,  Corrupting  divine  worship,  and  thus  following  divi- 
sive courses,  is  a  sin  against  God,  and  a  scandal  to  his  Church  ; 
and 

Whereas,  You,  James  Grant,  are  charged  with  said  sin  and 
scandal,  by  Ephraim  Young ;  therefore,  you  should  be  proceeded 
against  by  the  censures  of  the  house  of  God,  designed  as  these  are 
for  your  edification,  and  not  for  your  destruction.     The  specifica- 


20 

tion  of  the  charge  against  you  is  :  that  on  the  Sabbath,  while  con- 
ducting the  worship  of  God,  in  the  Colored  Mission  Sabbath  School 
of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Mary  street,  near 
Sixth  street,  Philadelphia,  you  used  uninspired  hymns,  contrary  to 
the  8th  section  of  the  24th  chapter  of  our  Testimony,  which  says 
that  the  Psalms,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  imitations  and  uninspired 
compositions,  are  to  be  used  in  social  worship. 

Witnesses,  George  H.  Stuart,  Jr.,  Francis  McBride,  Miss  Annie 
Wells,  Miss  Adams,  Miss  Helen  Blair,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Mcllwain. 

With  all  this  you  are  charged ;  and  an  opportunity  is  now  offered 
of  presenting  your  defence,  if  any  such  you  have  to  make. 

EPHRAIM  YOUNG. 

Philadelphia,  April  23c?,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 

[No.  VI.] 
PROTEST  AND  APPEAL. 

We,  the  undersigned,  elders  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church,  Philadelphia,  protest  against  all  the  proceedings  of  this 
Session,  in  regard  to  the  election  for  Trustees,  held  on  the  6th 
ult.,  by  the  congregation  of  this  church — 

For  the  following  reasons,  viz.  : 

1st.  Because  the  Session  have  no  jurisdiction  in  this  case. 

2d.  Because,  notwithstanding  their  want  of  jurisdiction,  they 
have  attempted,  unlawfully,  to  strike  from  the  list  of  electors  one 
hundred  and  twenty-seven  names,  and  this  without  citation  and 
without  trial. 

3d.  Because  no  person  can  be  legally  deprived  of  his  or  her 
rights  by  any  court,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  without  due 
process  of  law. 

4th.  Because  the  attempt  to  deprive  these  persons  of  their 
rights,  and,  at  the  same  time,  withhold  from  the  congregation  their 
names  and  the  reasons  for  such  deprivation,  is  arbitrary  and  un- 
presbyterial. 


21 


5th.  Because,  if  these  persons  had  been  properly  notified,  and 
an  opportunity  had  been  afforded  them  before  this  court,  they 
might  have  been  able  to  give  satisfactory  reasons  why  their  names 
should  not  have  been  stricken  from  the  list  of  electors. 

6th.  Because  it  is  a  matter  of  public  notoriety,  that  some,  and, 
probably,  all  of  these  persons,  received  from  those  who  are  now 
contesting  the  election,  a  printed  ticket  and  circular,  soliciting 
their  votes,  thus  recognizing  their  right  and  duty  to  vote  that 
printed  ticket. 

7th.  Because,  if  the  persons  to  whom  these  tickets  and  circulars 
were  sent  by  these  contestants,  were  not  qualified  to  vote,  they 
ought  not  to  have  been  tempted  by  them  to  do  what  was  improper 
and  unlawful. 

And  now,  for  these  reasons,  we  appeal  from  the  decision  of  this 
Session  to  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  by  some, 
called  the  First  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  meet  in 
semi-annual  Session  on  the  1st  Tuesday  of  May,  1868. 

A.  S.  McMURRAY, 
ROBERT  GUY. 

Philadelphia,  February  15th,  1868. 

And  further,  we  subjoin  the  following  document,  containing  ad- 
ditional and  cumulative  reasons  for  appealing,  as  appellants,  in 
this  case. 

We,  the  undersigned,  elders  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church,  Philadelphia,  protest  against  any  official  action  already 
taken,  or  hereafter  attempted  by  this  Session,  in  regard  to  the 
election  for  Trustees  lately  held  by  the  congregation  of  this 
church — 

For  the  following  reasons,  viz. : 

1st.  Because  the  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  congregational 
meeting  of  the  6th  inst.,  submitted  to  session  on  the  23d  inst.,  is 
incorrect;  and,  even  if  correct,  it  has  not  yet  been  adopted  by  the 
congregation. 

2d.  Because  only  two  votes  were  challenged  during  the  election  ; 
and,  as  those  who  challenged  them  failed  to  assign  reasons  there- 
for, and  as  no  further  opposition  was  made  to  their  reception,  and 
as  the  tellers  agreed  to  receive  them,  their  legality  cannot  now  be 
questioned. 


22 

3d.  Because  the  charter  of  the  church  gives  no  power  to  the 
Session,  officially,  to  revise  or  set  aside  an  election,  duly  held  by 
the  confrresration. 

4th.  Because  the  Session  should  not  attempt  to  revise  the  list 
of  electors  now,  as  to  their  qualifications  for  voting,  by  being  in 
church  communion,  after  the  election  has  taken  place. 

5th.  Because,  according  to  the  above-mentioned  extract,  the 
correctness  of  the  list  of  pew-holders  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the 
late  Board  of  Trustees ;  and,  as  these  were  all  candidates  for  re- 
election, they  should  not  revise  the  list  after  the  ballot  has  been 
taken,  inasmuch  as  this  would  constitute  them  judges  of  their  own 
election. 

6th.  Because  there  is  no  authority  anywhere  now  to  strike  from 
the  list  of  electors  any  person  not  before  dealt  with  and  suspended 
from  the  privileges  of  the  church,  as  evidenced  by  the  minutes  of 
this  Session. 

A.  S.  McMURRAY, 
ROBERT.  GUY. 

Philadelphia,  January  olst,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Cleric. 

[No.  VII.] 
PROTEST  AXD  APPEAL. 

Rev,  Fathers  and  Brethren  : — We,  the  undersigned,  elders 
of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  protest 
against  the  conduct  of  the  First  Reformed,  by  some,  called  the  Re- 
formed Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  12th  inst.,  in  the  mat. 
ter  of  our  joint  Declinature,  Protest  and  Appeal,  then  formally 
presented,  and  hereby  signify  our  intention  to  appeal  to  General 
Synod,  at  the  first  meeting,  of  which  intention  public  intimation 
was  given  at  the  time — 

For  the  following  reasons,  viz.  : 

1st.  Because,  on  presenting  our  Declinature,  the  Moderator, 
usurping  the  power  of  the  court,  proceeded  to  examine  the  docu 


23 

ment  himself,  and  afterwards  made  comments  upon  it  before  the 
Presbytery  and  a  promiscuous  assembly,  which  were  partial,  offen- 
sive, and  insulting. 

2d.  Because,  when  our  Protest  against  the  action  of  Session  was 
presented,  the  Moderator  urged  us  to  take  back  our  Declinature, 
and  we,  refusing,  he  pronounced  our  refusal  an  insult  to  the  court, 
and  assigned  this  as  a  reason  for  not  even  opening  our  Protest  and 
Appeal ;  and  when,  at  this  juncture,  we  protested,  and  appealed  to 
General  Synod,  the  Moderator  declared  from  the  Chair,  that  we 
uhad  no  right  to  protest  or  appeal,  not  being  members  of  court ," 
the  rest  acquiescing,  in  violation  of  our  unquestionable  rights.  See 
Book  of  Discipline,  section  3d,  paragraph  oth. 

3d.  Because  we,  under  a  threat  from  the  Chair  of  expulsion  by 
the  Sexton,  were  not  permitted  to  utter  one  word  in  prosecution  of 
our  cause;  and  when  the  question  was  asked,  had  our  Declinature 
been  presented  to  Session  within  legal  time,  a  member  of  court  was 
permitted  to  give  a  lengthy  answer  in  the  negative,  although  inti- 
mation had  been  given  by  us  apud  acta. 

4th.  Because,  in  contravention  of  established  ecclesiastical  law, 
two  individuals  were  recognized  as  members  of  court,  against  whom 
grave  charges  had  been  preferred  by  formal  libel. 

For  these  reasons,  and  others,  contained  in  the  accompanying 
documents,  we  appeal  to  your  venerable  body,  and  respectfully  ask 
for  such  redress  as  you  can  give,  according  to  the  standards  and 
established  order  of  the  church. 

A.  S.  McMURRAY, 
ROBERT  GUY. 

Philadelphia,  May  20th,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 

[No.  VIII.] 
DECLINATURE. 

The  undersigned,  elders  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church,  Philadelphia,  decline  the  pretended  authority  of  the  rema- 


24 

nent  members  of  session,  in  their  unlawful  attempt  to  exercise  ju- 
dicial powers,  by  affecting  to  pass  censure  upon  them — 

For  the  following  reasons,  viz.  : 

1st.  Because  three  of  the  members  of  Session,  viz.:  George  H. 
Stuart,  James  Grant,  and  Win.  John  Chambers,  have  been  sub- 
jected to  grave  charges,  by  formal  libels  preferred  against  them  be- 
fore Session,  when  in  its  full  integrity,  April  23d,  1868. 

2d.  Because,  with  the  concurrence  of  two  of  the  above-men- 
tioned disqualified  elders,  the  third  being  absent,  they  attempted, 
in  violation  of  Presbyterial  and  social  order,  to  pass  censure  upon 
one  of  us ;  and  as  a  further  outrage  and  open  insult,  they  ap- 
pointed the  aforesaid  three  elders  to  prepare  charges  against  the 
other. 

3d.  Because  we  cannot,  in  any  degree,  sanction  the  profanation 
of  the  name  of  the  Church's  Head,  or  the  prostitution  of  any  of 
the  laws  of  his  House,  by  such  illegal  and  tyrannical  proceedings. 

And  now,  for  these  reasons,  they  appeal  to  the  Reformed  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia,  by  some,  called  the  First  Reformed  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia,  to  meet  in  semi-annual  Session  on  Tuesday, 
May  5th,  1868. 

A.  S.  McMURRAY, 
ROBERT  GUY. 

Philadelphia,  May  \th,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 

[No.  IX.] 
PROTEST  AND  APPEAL. 

The  undersigned,  one  of  the  members  of  the  First  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  protests  against  all  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  court  in  the  cases  of  Geo.  H.  Stuart  and  James 
Grant,  against  whom  I  preferred  charges  on  April  23d,  1868 — 

For  the  following  reasons,  viz.  : 

1st.  Because  all  the  courts  of  Christ's  house,  according  to  Pres- 
byterial order,  should  be  open  to  any  of  the  members  of  the  church 
who  wish  to  attend,  and  none  should  sit  with  closed  doors,  unless 


25 

under  very  peculiar  circumstances  ;  yet  you  rudely  ordered  myself, 
and  three  other  brethren  who  accompanied  me,  to  withdraw.  With 
which  order  we  complied,  after  your  explicit  promise  to  call  in 
Geo.  Gordon  and  myself  before  adjourning. 

2d,  Because,  notwithstanding  your  promise,  you  were  about  to 
adjourn,  although  reminded  of  it  by  Mr.  Henry  Sterling,  that 
venerable  man  who,  a  few  hours  afterwards,  was  so  suddenly  called 
to  his  eternal  reward. 

3d,  Because,  when  we  were  invited  in  again  by  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  court,  who  saw  that  the  motion  for  adjournment  was 
passed,  even  after  Mr.  Sterling's  expostulation,  you  refused  to  re- 
ceive my  papers ;  and,  after  I  had  laid  them  on  your  table,  and 
given  notice  of  my  Protest  and  appeal  to  the  Philadelphia  Reformed 
Presbytery,  the  Moderator  contemptuously  and  violently  threw 
them  in  my  face. 

4th,  Because,  at  the  previous  regular  meeting  of  Session,  you 
adjourned,  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  Moderator ;  and  as  no  special 
business  was  mentioned  by  him  in  the  announcement  of  the  next 
meeting  from  the  pulpit,  the  presentation  of  these  papers  was  per- 
fectly legitimate ;  and  your  solemn  promise  to  admit  us,  and  to  at- 
tend to  our  business  before  the  adjournment  of  the  court,  was  an 
admission  of  this,  and  placed  you  under  an  additional  obligation  to 
receive  them. 

And  now,  for  these  reasons,  I  protest  against  the  decision  of  this 
Session,  in  refusing  to  receive  and  act  upon  the  above  papers,  and 
appeal  to  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  by  some, 
called  the  First  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  meet  in 
semi-annual  Session  on  the  1st  Tuesday  of  May,  1868. 

EPHRAIM  YOUNG. 
Philadelphia,  May  1st,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 
[No.  X.] 

PROTEST  AND   APPEAL. 

The  undersigned,  one  of  the  members  of  the  First  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  protests  against  all  the  pro- 


26 

ceedings  of  -  rt,  in  the  case  of  Wm.  J.  Chambers,  aga: 

whom  I  preferred  charges  on  April  231.  1868.     For  the  following 
is.  : 
1st  Because  all  the    Courts    of   Christ's   hous-:.  ling    to 

Presbyterial  order,  should  be  open  to  any  of  the  members  of  the 
church  who  wish  to  attend,  and  none  should  sit  with  clos- 
unle-  7  peculiar  circumstan  -  you  rudely  ordered 

myself  and  three  other  brethren  who  accompanied  ne  to  withdraw, 
with  which  order  we  complied  after  your  explicit  promise  to  call  in 
Ephraim  Young  and  myself  before  adjourning. 

21.  Because,  notwithstanding  your  promise,  you  were  about  to 
adjourn,  although  reminded  of  it  by  Mr.  Henry  Sterling,  that  ven- 
erable man  who  a  few  hours  afterward  was  so  suddenly  called 
to  his  eternal  reward. 

31.  Becara  ire  were  invited  in  again  by  one  of  the  mem- 

bers of  the  Court,  who  saw  that  the  motion  for  adjournment  was 
d  after  Mr.  Sterling's  expostulation,  you  refused  to 
:ve  my  paper;  and  after  I  had  laid  it  on  your  table,  and  given 
notice  of  my  protest  and  appeal  to  the  Philadelphia  Reformed 
Pre-"  ytery,  the  Moderator  contemptuously  and  violently  threw  it, 
with  others,  in  the  face  of  Ephraim  Youl_-. 

4:':..  Because  at  the  previous  regular  meeting  of  Session  you 
:  the  call  of  the  Moderator,  and  as  no  special 
business  was  mentioned  by  him  in  the  announcement  of  the  next 
meeting  from  the  pulpit,  the  presentation  of  my  paper  was  per- 
tly legitimate,  and  your  solemn  promise  to  admit  us  and  attend 
to  our  business  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Court  was  an  admis- 
sion of  this,  and  placed  you  under  an  additional  obligation  to  re- 
ceive it. 

And  now  for  these  reasons  I  Protest  against  the  decision  of  this 
S-ssion,  in  refusing  I  re  and  act  upon  the  above  paper,  and 

appeal  to  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia — by  some 
called  the  Fir-:  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia — to  meet  in 
semi-annual  session  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  May,  1868. 

GEORGE  GORDON. 
PhOaddph       Jfay  1st  1S0S. 

That  this  is   a   correct   copy  of  a   document   pre*  to   the 

General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified  by 

John  X.  McLeod,  Stated  Clerk. 


27 

PROTEST  AND  APPEAL. 
Rev.  Fathers  axd  Brethren  : 

We  the  undersigned  members  of  the  First  Ref.  Pres.  Church 
Phila.,  protest  against  the  conduct  of  the  First  Ref.  by  some  called 
the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  12th  and  14th 
inst.,  in  the  matter  of  Protests  against  the  illegal  proceedings  of 
the  session  of  the  First  Ref.  Pres.  Church,  Phila.,  in  the  case  of 
certain  libels,  tabled  before  them  on  the  23d  of  April,  1868.  For 
the  following  reasons,  viz.:  • 

1.  Because  apparently  to  screen  the  character  of  some,  and  in- 
jure the  character  of  others,  the  Court  went  into  secret  session. 

2.  Because  contrary  to  Rule  32d  for  the  direction  of  judicatories 
in  the  Ref.  Pres.  Church  our  Protests  were  given  into  the  hands  of 
a  committee. 

3d.  Because  we  were  not  allowed  to  offer  any  explanation  or  de- 
fense of  our  cause  contrary  to  the  inspired  rule,  which  says  "  Doth 
our  law  judge  any  man  before  it  hear  him  ?" 

4.  Because  two  illegal  members  were  permitted  to  judge  in  our 
case,  and  one  of  these  was  appointed  on  the  committee  to  report  on 
our  papers  thus  vitiating  the  whole  proceedings. 

For  these  reasons  and  others  in  the  accompanying  documents  we 
appeal  to  you,  Fathers  and  Brethren,  to  render  judgment  in  the 
premises,  and  rebuke  such  illegal  proceedings. 

GEORGE  GORDON, 
EPHRABI  YOUNG, 

Philadelphia,  May  20,  1868. 

That  this  is  a  correct  copy  of  a  document  presented  to  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  is  certified 
by  John  N.  McLeod, 

Stated  Clerk. 

On  the  morning  of  May  23d,  when  these  papers  were  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  Discipline,  the  following  protest  was  entered: 

[C] 

PROTEST. 

The  subscribers  respectfully  protest  against  the  action  of  the 
General  Synod  in  receiving  certain  papers  relating  to  the  affairs  of 
the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  because, 


28 

1.  Each  and  all  of  these  papers  came  before  Synod  in  a  grossly 
irregular  manner,  and  this  not  in  any  degree  through  the  ne- 
glect or  error  of  either  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
or  the  Session  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
Philadelphia.  Paper  No.  1.  styled  a  Remonstrance,  is  (1)  virtually 
and  really  a  complaint  against  the  pastor,  the  session,  the  trustees, 
and  some  of  the  most  respected  members  of  said  First  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  containing  the  most  serious 
charges,  which*  were  never  presented  to  the  persons  accused,  and 
which  they  never  had  any  opportunity  of  preparing  to  meet.  (2.) 
In  every  paragraph  of  said  Remonstrance  there  are  one  or  more 
shocking  violations  of  truth.  (3.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
persons,  whose  names  are  appended  to  the  paper,  are  in  regular 
standing  in  connection  with  the  congregation.  (4.)  It  has  been 
ascertained,  by  a  slight  examination,  made  by  the  Moderator  and 
other  members  of  the  session  now  present  at  Synod,  that  several 
of  the  signers  are  persons  under  suspension,  several  under  proc 
and  some  have  withdrawn  from  the  congregation,  and  a  large 
number  are  not  in  regular  standing.  (5.)  There  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  a  considerable  number  of  the  persons  who  signed  this 
Remonstrance  never  saw  it  or  heard  it. 

Papers  Xos.  3,  4  and  5  being  sundry  libels,  were  never  received 
by  the  Session  of  the  First  Church,  were  not  prepared  or  presented 
by  that  court,  and  were  never  heard  by  any  member  of  it,  until 
read  in  Synod. 

Papers  Xos.  6  and  7,  protests  of  A.  S.  M'Murray  and  R.  Guy, 
are  irregular,  because  against  action  which  session  took  in  con- 
junction  with  Board  of  Trustees  as  arbitrators  or  referees,  at  the 
request  of  the  congregation,  and  which  cannot  come  under  the 
supervision  of  this  court,  as  the  congregation  never  requested  this 
court  to  consider  the  subject. 

Paper  No.  8,  Declinature  of  R.  Guy  and  A.  S.  M'Murray,  was 
never  presented  to  the  Session,  as  required  by  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline.    Ch.  3,  §  3,  p.  22,  ed.  1865. 

Papers  No.  9,  10.  Protest  and  Appeal  of  E.  Young  and  G. 
Gordon  were  sent  with  proper  replies  to  the  Philadelphia  Reformed 
Presbytery,  which  has  them  still  under  consideration. 

2.  These  papers,  containing  the  most  serious   charges   against 


29 

persons  of  the  most  respectable  character,  were  allowed  to  be  read 
publicly  in  Synod,  and  no  opportunity  was  given  to  reply  to  them, 
the  previous  question  being  put  and  carried. 

3.  Because  there  is  evidence  that  these  papers  were  prompted 
by  malicious  feelings,  since  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  not  one 
of  them  would  have  been  presented  had  not  the  session,  after  long 
patience,  prepared  to  exercise  discipline  on  several  persons  who 
were  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  congregation. 

4.  Because  to  receive  such  papers  tends  to  destroy  and  not  to 
support  the  just  authority  of  the  Presbytery,  and  the  Session  to 
whose  jurisdiction  the  persons  purporting  to  present  these  papers 
are  subject. 

Samuel  Wylib,      ^  T.  W.  J.  Wyue, 

Johx  F.  Hill,  So  far  as  it  A.  G.  McAuley, 

Roet.  McMillax,    I  relates  to  the  R.  H.  MacMunn, 

Bexj.  Miller,         'irregularity  of  W.  Sterrett, 

Geo.  Scott.  the  papers.  Geo.  H.  Stuart. 

Johx  McMillax, 

CASE  OF  MB.  GEO.  H.  STUART. 

On  Monday,  May  25th,  James  Sample,  Ruling  Elder  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  presented  the  following  Resolutions : 

Whereas,  Geo.  H.  Stuart  has  for  a  long  time  been  pursuing 
divisive  courses  and  whereas  he  did,  on  the  22d  inst.,  openly  and 
defiantly  avow  on  the  floor  of  General  Synod  that  he  had  violated 
the  standards  of  the  church  on  Psalmody  and  Communion  and 
would  continue  to  do  so,  therefore 

Resolved,  That  Geo.  H.  Stuart  be  and  he  hereby  is  suspended  from 
the  Eldership  and  Membership  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
church,  and  his  seat  in  the  Synod  consequently  vacated. 

JAMES  SAMPLE. 

On  Tuesday,  May  26th,  S.  B.  W.  McLeod,  M.  D.,  Ruling  Elder 
New  York  City,  offered  the  following  amendment  to  the  pending 
Resolution  : 

Whereas,  Mr.  Geo.  H.  Stuart,  a  member  of  this  Synod, 
has  given  that  honor  and  place  to  human  compositions  which 
are  due  only  to  the  Book  of  Psalms;  has  engaged  in  commu- 
nion  with  persons,  and  in   a  manner  condemned  by  the   church 


30 

to  which  he  belongs;  has  very  extensively  withdrawn  his  sup- 
port from  this  church,  has  on  two  occasions  in  open  Synod  de- 
fied the  authority  of  Synod,  and  challenged  official  notice  thereof ; 
has  often  thrown  or  attempted  to  throw  odium  and  ridicule  on  our 
denomination ;  has  distinctly  int  he  opinions  of  intelligent  persons 
outside  as  well  as  among  ourselves,  followed  divisive  courses,  and 
used  his  means  and  influences  so  to  do,  and  has  in  the  prosecution 
of  his  apparent  purpose  in  breaking  down  the  church,  extensively 
sown  discord  among  brethren,  therefore 

Resolved,  That  a  commitee  of  Synod  be  appointed  to  confer 
with  Mr.  Stuart,  and  should  he  pledge  himself  to  the  satisfaction  of 
Synod  to  alter  his  conduct  in  these  respects,  that  the  disapproval 
by  Synod  of  his  past  actions  be  expressed  by  the  Moderator,  and 
the  matter  be  dismissed.  But  should  he  not  consent  to  this,  that 
he  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his  office  and  membership 
until  restored  by  Synod  or  a  commission  thereof. 

On  the  afternoon  of  May  26th,  Mr.  Robert  Matthews  offered 
the  following  substitute  for  the  pending  resolution  and  amendment: 

Whereas,  Mr.  Geo.  H.  Stuart,  upon  his  own  acknowledgment, 
on  the  floor  of  this  Synod,  has  used  in  the  worship  of  God  other 
songs,  as  the  matter  of  praise,  than  those  authorized  by  this  Synod  ; 
and, 

"Whereas,  He  has  departed  from  the  order  of  the  church  in  the 
matter  of  communion  ;  therefore, 

Resolved  1.  That  Mr.  Stuart  be  required  to  promise  conformity 
hereafter  to  the  usages  of  our  historically  venerable  church,  on 
these  points :  and  that  he  receive  an  admonition  from  the  Moderator. 

Resolved  2.  That  in  case  Mr.  Stuart  will  not  submit  to  this  mild 
censure,  he  be  suspended  from  his  privileges  in  the  church,  and 
his  seat  declared  vacant  in  this  Synod. 

The  Moderator  put  the  question,  Shall  the  substitute  be  enter 
tained  ?     It  was  decided  in  the  negative. 

On  May  27th,  Rev.  A.  G.  Wylie  offered  a  substitute  for  all  the 
papers  before  the  house  in  Mr.  Stuart's  case.     It  was  entertained. 

Whereas.  This  Synod  possesses  original  as  well  as  appellato 
jurisdiction  over  all  persons  and  all  matters  affecting  the  general 
interests  of  the  church,  under  its  supervision  and  care ;  and 

Whereas.  There  are  well-known  and  established  laws  in  regard 
to  the  subjects  of  Psalmody  and   Communion,  in  the  former   of 


31 

which  an  inspired  Psalmody,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  imitations  and 
uninspired  compositions,  is  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God ;  and 
in  the  latter,  declaring  Communion  in  sealing  ordinances  to  be  ex- 
tended to  those  only  whom  we  would  receive  to  constant  fellow- 
ship, and  become  subject  to  the  authority  of  this  Church  ;  and 

"Whereas,  George  H.  Stuart  has  openly  and  defiantly  declared 
on  various  occasions,  and  on  the  floor  of  this  Synod,  that  he  has, 
in  the  worship  of  God,  used  imitations  and  uninspired  compositions, 
called  hymns  ;  and  that  he  has  communed  with  others,  and  in 
other  churches,  in  sealing  ordinances,  and  has  declared  that  he  will 
continue  so  to  do  ;  therefore 

Resolved,  1st.  That  by  this  avowed  course  of  conduct,  George 
H.  Stuart  has  violated  the  laws  of  this  church,  in  these  cases  made 
and  provided. 

Resolved,  2d.  That  George  H.  Stuart  be  and  hereby  is  suspended 
from  his  office,  and  from  membership  in  this  church,  until  he  ac_ 
knowledge  his  error  in  the  premises,  and  submit  to  the  laws  and 
authority  of  this  church,  and  that  his  seat  in  Synod,  in  conse- 
quence, be  declared  vacated. 

A.  G.  WYLIE. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  substi- 
tute offered  for  all  relating  to  the  matter  before  Synod  in  the  case 
of  George  H.  Stuart. 

Nevin  Woodside, 

Assistant  Clerk. 

Dr.  Wylie  presented  the  following  paper,  which  was  read,  and 
ordered  on  record : 

To  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  session  at  Pittsburgh,  May,  1868. 

I  hereby  solemnly  deny  each  and  all  of  the  allegations  and 
charges  contained  in  the  preamble  and  resolutions  offered  by  Rev. 
A.  G.  Wylie,  in  manner  and  form  as  they  are  alleged,  and  I 
protest  against  the  right  of  Synod  to  pass  such  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions, and  ask  that  this  my  denial  and  protest  be  entered  on  the 
minutes.  GEO.  H.  STUART. 

Pittsburgh,  May  28,  1868. 

Synod  proceeded  to  vote.  The  roll  was  called  and  result  de- 
clared as  follows :    Ayes — The  Moderator,   W.    S.   Bratton,   Dr. 


32 

Crawford,  Dr.  Douglas,  M.  Harshaw,  J.  F.  Morton,  W.  J. 
McDowell,  Dr.  McMaster,  A.  Thomson,  N.  Woodside,  A.  G.  Wy- 
lie,  S.  Young,  W.  Earley,  J.  N.  Gifford,  Peter  Gibson,  K.  Hunter, 
R.  Hemphill,  J.  Holmes,  R.  Matthews,  R.  Marshall,  W.  McLach- 
lan,  W.  Reed,  D.  Fields,  D.  Stewart,  J.  Sample,  J.  Stormont,  M. 
Shirra,  J.  Scott— 28.* 

Noes — J.  H.  Cooper,  J.  F.  Hill,  Thomas  Johnston,  Dr.  McLeod? 
J.  McMillan,  R.  McMillan,  Dr.  McAuley,  Dr.  Scott,  Dr.  Sterrett, 
S.  Wylie,Dr.  Wylie,  H.  Dehaven,  B.  Miller,  R.  H.  MacMunn— 14. 

Not  voting— Dr.  Clarke,  A.  R.  Gailey,  W.  P.  Shaw,  A.  Kerr, 
W.  McCormick,  J.  Stewart— 6. 

The  Moderator  announced  that  the  preamble  and  resolutions 
were  adopted ;  and  declared  that  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart  was  suspended 
from  office  and  membership  in  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

PROTEST  AGAINST  ACTION  OF  GENERAL  SYNOD  IN 
CASE  OF  GEO.  H.  STUART. 

1.  Because  assuming  that  the  Synod  possesses  the  original  juris- 
diction it  claims,  this  jurisdiction  can  be  exercised  only  on  the  con- 
ditions and  according  to  the  order  established  in  its  own  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, which  it  has  violated  in  every  particular.  Ch.  3rd.  §  2, 
pp.  3,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11. 

2.  Because  the  form  of  the  charges  against  Mr.  Stuart  was 
changed  three  several  times,  said  charges  being  first  presented  in 
a  resolution  by  James  Sample;  then  in  an  amendment  to  said  reso- 
lution by  Dr  .S.  B.  W.  McLeod ;  then,  finally,  in  a  substitute  for  the 
whole  subject  presented  by  Rev.  A.  G.  Wylie. 

3.  Because  at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  said  resolution  by 
Rev  A.  G.  Wylie,  Mr.  Stuart  was  confined  to  his  room  in  the  Mo- 
nongahela  House  in  the  city  of  Pittsburg,  with  a  violent  attack  of 
spasmodic  Asthma,  which  rendered  it  impossible  for  him  to  attend 
Synod,  without  danger  of  his  life,  as  he  was  advised  by  his  physi- 


*Dr.  McLeod,  who  as  Clerk  of  Synod,  called  the  roll,  arranged  in  alphabetical  order, 
omitted  his  own  name  in  its  regular  place,  and  although  attention  was  called  to  this  by 
several  members,  he  refused  to  declare  his  vote  until  all  the  other  members  of  Synod  had 
voted. 


33 

cian,  James  King,  M.  D.,  whose  certificate  to  this  effect  was  publicly 
read  before  the  Synod.* 

4.  Because  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart  was  never  notified  of  the  resolution 
under  which  he  was  suspended. 

5.  Because  the  only  official  notice  received  by  Mr.  Stuart  was 
the  following  namely:  "  The  following  resolution  was  passed  by 
the  General  Synod  of  the  Ref.  Pres.  Church,  at  its  session  in  Pitts- 
burg, May  27,  1868.  Attest  John  N.  McLeod,  Stated  Clerk. 
Resolved,  That  the  vote  on  the  pending  question  (in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Geo.  H.  Stuart)  be  taken  at  \  to  12  o'clock  M.  this  day,  and 
that  Mr.  Stuart  be  informed  of  this  by  the  Stated  Clerk.  Pitts- 
burg, May  27th,  1868,"  which  notice  was  not  served  on  Mr.  Stu- 
art until  about  J  before  11  A.  M.,  on  Thursday,  May  28th. 

6.  Because  after  service  of  the  aforesaid  notice  but  before  the 
vote  on  said  preamble  and  resolution,  namely,  at  or  about  \  past 
12  o'clock  P.  M.,  May  28th,  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart,  through  Dr.  T.  W.  J. 
"Wylie  presented  to  the  Moderator  of  the  Synod  a  paper  solemnly 
denying  each  and  all  of  the  allegations  and  charges  contained  in 
said  preamble  and  resolutions  in  manner  and  form  as  alleged,  and 
protesting  against  the  right  of  Synod  to  pass  the  same,  and  yet  not- 
withstanding said  denial  and  protest  without  giving  Mr.  Stuart  any 
opportunity  of  being  heard  in  his  defense  the  Synod  proceeded  to 
take  a  vote  on  said  Preamble  and  Resolutions  and  passed  them. 

7.  Because  the  particular  acts chargedagainst  Mr. Geo.  H.  Stuart 
have  been  allowed  for  many  years  in  the  Ref.  Pres.  Church,  while 
well  known  to  Synod. 

8.  Because  several  other  members  of  Synod  publicly  declared  on 
the  floor  of  Synod  that  they  had  done  the  things  with  which  Mr. 
Stuart  was  charged,  and  no  censure  was  proposed  or  passed  on 
them. 

9.  Because  there  is  no   evidence  that  Mr.  Stuart's  practice  as 


*  CERTIFICATE  FROM  DR.  KING. 

Pittsburgh,  May  27th,  1868. 
I  certify  that  Mr.  Geo*H.  Stuart  is  now  under  my  professional  care  for  a  violent  attack 
of  spasmodic  asthma.  I  have  advised  him  to  remain  in  his  room  until  he  can  leave  the 
city,  wh  ch  I  think  he  should  do  as  soon  as  possible.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  can- 
not attend  the  session  of  Synod,  with  which  he  is  connected,  this  afternoon,  without 
danger  to  his  life,  and  I  have  advised  him  accordingly. 

Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  KING,  M.D. 


34 

admitted  by  him,  although  not  in  the  form  and  manner  alleged,  is 
contrary  to  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  standards  of  the  Ref. 
Pres.  Church. 

10.  Because  the  terms  of  ecclesiastical  communion  in  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church  require  assent  to  our  standards  only 
"as  embodying,  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  the  great  principles 
of  the  Covenanted  Presbyterian  Reformation." 

11.  Because  the  formula  of  queries  to  be  put  to  Ministers  and 
Ruling  Elders  at  ordination  requires  assent  to  the  standards  of  the 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  only,  "as  embodying  the  great 
principles  of  the  Covenanted  Reformation." 

12.  Because  the  passage  of  said  resolution  is  calculated  to  pro- 
duce great  detriment  to  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

13.  Because  the  passage  of  the  Resolution  will  produce  great 
detriment  to  religion. 

14.  Because  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart's  eminent  labors  and  services  in 
the  cause  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  Church  at  large  and 
this  Church  in  particular,  for  the  welfare  of  all  classes  and  condi- 
tions of  men,  for  the  cause  of  missions  at  home  and  abroad,  and 
especially  on  behalf  of  our  soldiers  during  the  recent  struggle, 
greatly  aggravated  the  injustice  and  wickedness  with  which  he  has 
been  treated. 

Samuel  Wylie,  A.  G.  McAuley, 

T.  W.  J.  Wylie,  Robt.  McMillan, 

W.  Sterrett,  John  F.  Hill, 

Geo.  Scott.  R.  H.MacMunn, 

Besj.  Miller, 
John  McMillan. 


On  the  29th  of  May,  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Disci- 
pline was  adopted,  as  follows: 

REPORT   OF   THE   COMMITTEE   OF   DISCIPLINE. 

The  Committee  on  Discipline  respectfully  report  to  General 
Synod  in  relation  to  the  papers  presented  by  Elders,  Trustees  and 
Members  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Congregation  of 
Philadelphia,  as  follows  : 

The  remonstrance,  which  is   also  a  petition  for   a    redress  o* 


35 

grievances,  being  addressed  to  Synod,  comes  up  regularly  for 
consideration.  The  other  papers,  although  not  coming  technically, 
according  to  the  rules,  should  not,  on  this  account,  be  pronounced 
irregular,  inasmuch  as  any  seeming  irregularity  which  attaches  to 
them  does  not  arise  from  any  disregard  of  the  rules  of  order  on  the 
part  of  those  by  whom  they  are  presented,  but  the  failure  on  the 
part  of  Session  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila- 
delphia, and  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  take  ac- 
tion upon  them. 

In  view  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  Committee  re- 
commend the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  1st.  That  the  act  of  suspension  pronounced  by  the 
Session  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Congregation  of  Phila- 
delphia, on  Dr.  A.  S.  McMurray  and  Mr.  Robert  Guy,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  revoked. 

Resolved,  2d.  That  the  joint  action  of  the  gession  and  Board  of 
Trustees  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Congregation  of 
Philadelphia,  in  disfranchising  or  declaring  illegal  the  votes  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-seven  members  or  adherents  thereto,  who 
voted  at  the  last  annual  election  for  Trustees  in  said  congregation, 
without  issuing  a  citation  upon  them,  or  allowing  them  a  hearing, 
is  contrary  to  the  good  order  of  the  laws  of  God's  house,  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  declared  illegal  and  of  no  effect. 

Resolved,  3d.  That  the  whole  matter  pertaining  to  the  difficul- 
ties existing  in  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of  Phila- 
delphia, be  referred  to  a  Commission  of  General  Synod,  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Moderator,  consisting  of  four  ministers  and  three 
ruling  elders,  who  shall  be  clothe!  with  Synodical  powers  and  have 
authority  to  issue  the  whole  case. 

Resolved,  4th.  That  this  Commission,  of  whom  any  three  minis- 
ters and  any  two  ruling  elders  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  shall 
meet  in  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  on 

*  day  of  June,  1868,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  and  shall  continue 

their  Sessions  from  day  to  day,  or  by  adjournment  from  time  to 
time,  until  they  shall  have  investigated  and  issued  the  whole  case. 

Resolved,  5th.  That  the  Session  of  the  First  Reformed  Presby- 


■  The  blank  was  afterwards  filled  by  the  appointment  of  June  17th,  1868,  at  3.30,  P.M. 


30 

terian  Congregation  of  Philadelphia,  consisting  of  Rev.  Dr.  T.  W. 
J.  Wylie,  Moderator,  and  Messrs.  G.  H.  Stuart,  A.  S.  MeMurray, 
Robert  Guy,  James  Grant,  J.  P.  Smith,  W.  J.  Chambers,  William 
Raj,  members,  be,  and  are  hereby  suspended  and  restrained  from 
the  exercise  of  judicial  functions  in  any  matter  or  matters  pertain- 
ing to  the  present  difficulties  in  said  congregation,  or  considering 
and  issuing,  in  their  judicial  capacity  as  a  Session,  any  case  re- 
lating to  said  difficulties. 

Resolved,  6th.  That  the  Philadelphia  Reformed  Presbytery  be, 
and  hereby  are  restrained  and  prohibited  from  considering  or 
issuing  any  case  now  pending  before  them,  or  that  may  hereafter 
be  brought  before  them,  relating  to  the  existing  difficulties  in  the 
First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Congregation  of  Philadelphia. 

Resolved,  7th.  That  the  decision  of  the  Commission,  subject  to 
the  review  of  General  Synod  at  its  next  regular  meeting,  shall  be 
final ;  and  none  of  the  parties  shall  plead  or  be  impleaded  either 
in  Session  or  Presbytery,  on  any  of  the  matters  connected  with  of 
arising  out  of  the  present  existing  difficulties,  until  such  review 
shall  have  been  made,  and  the  disabilities  imposed  above,  in  regard 
to  the  exercise  of  judicial  functions,  shall  have  been  removed. 

Resolved,  8th.  That  all  the  papers  presented  to  General  Synod 
on  the  subject,  be  referred  to  the  Synodical  Commission,  to  be  ap- 
pointed as  above. 

Pittsburg,  May  Tali,  1868. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  is  a  true  copy. 

John  N.  McLeod,  Stated  Clerk 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

At  the  afternoon  session,  May  29th,  Rev.  Dr.  M'Master,  Rev. 
Dr.  Douglas,  Rev.  A.  G.  Wylie,  Rev.  W.  J.  McDowell,  and  Ruling 
Elders,  James  Stewart,  Thomas  Smith,  William  McLachlan,  were 
appointed  the  Commission  of  Synod. 

[E] 

PROTEST  AGAINST  ADOPTION  OF  REPORT   OF  COM_ 

MITTEE  ON  DISCIPLINE. 

The  subscribers  respectfully  protest  against  adoption  of  Report 
of  Committee  on  Discipline,  Because  1.  There  is  no  provision  for 
referring  such  matters  to  a  commission  clothed  with  such  powers. 


37 

2.  Because  several  of  the  matters  referred  to  are  already  in  the 
hands  of  a  Commission  appointed  by  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  and  have  not  in  any  regular  way  been  removed  from 
said  commission  to  the  Synod. 

3.  Because  not  one  of  the  papers  in  which  these  subjects  were 
presented  came  before  Synod  in  a  regular  form. 

4.  Because  the  1st  Resolution  performs  a  judicial  act  without 
pursuing  any  judicial  forms. 

5.  Because  the  2d  Resolution  undertakes  to  deal  with  a  subject 
over  which  the  Synod  has  no  jurisdiction. 

6.  Because  the  5th  and  6th  disregard  the  conditions  and  forms 
required  in  the  removal  of  cases  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Synod,  which  properly  belong  to  the  inferior  judicatories. 

Samuel  Wylie,  A.  G.  McAuley, 

T.  W.  J.  Wylie,  W.  Sterrett, 

B.  Miller,  R.  H.  MacMuxx, 

John  F.  Hill.  Geo.  Scott, 

Johx  McMillan, 
R.  McMillan. 


38 


APPENDIX. 


[Several  documents  connected  with  the  preceding,  which  would 
have  been  presented  to  Synod  or  Presbytery,  had  the  case  come  up 
in  a  regular  manner,  are  published  in  this  Appendix.} 

[Xo.  L] 

ADDRESS  BY  THE  PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  RE- 
FORMED PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

(read  from  the  pulpit,  may  3,  1868.) 

Dear  Brethren  and  Friends: — You  are  aware  that  the  peace  of 
our  congregation  has  been,  for  some  time  past,  sadly  disturbed. 
Remarkable,  until  recently,  for  the  love  and  good  feeling  which 
prevailed  amongst  us.  the  question  arises,  what  has  caused  so 
great,  so  melancholy  a  change?  We  believe  it  may  be  traced  to 
the  circulation  of  the  most  unwarrantable  representations,  that 
some  change  in  our  mode  of  worship  was  contemplated,  and  that 
the  Psalmody  which  we  now  employ,  venerable  for  its  age,  en- 
deared by  many  hallowed  associations,  and  which  has  been  to 
such  multitudes  the  expression  of  their  holiest  and  most  delightful 
emotions,  was  to  be  thrust  aside.  We  do  not  wonder  that  this 
should  prove  so  exciting,  but  let  us  again  assure  you,  as  we  have 
done  before,  that  nothing  could  be  more  untrue.  So  far  as  we 
are  aware,  there  is  not  one  member  of  the  Session,  or  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  or  of  the  entire  congregation,  who  has  had  any 
design  or  expectation  of  this  kind.  Disregard,  we  pray  you,  as  a 
gross  calumny,  any  such  representation. 


39 

It  is  now  about  a  year  since  such  rumors  began  to  circulate,  having 
at  that  time  reference  to  some  conjectured  action  of  our  Gene- 
ral Synod.  The  representation  then  made  that  something  of  this 
sort  was  contemplated,  we  believe  was  a  mere  fabrication,  as  no- 
thing whatever  of  that  sort  was  proposed.  Yet  many  were  thus 
deceived,  and  signed  a  memorial  which  we  believe  was  really  de- 
signed to  rally  a  party,  and  form  a  base  for  future  movements. 
When  the  year  was  about  to  close,  and  the  election  for  Trustees 
was  approaching,  it  was  ascertained  that  some  change  in  the  Board 
would  be  attempted,  by  which  long-tried  and  eminently  trustwor- 
thy members  were  to  be  superseded.  Numbers  were  told  that  if 
certain  persons,  who  had  served  the  congregation  for  many  years, 
should  be  reelected,  "  the  Psalms  would  be  put  out,"  and  that,  if 
they  wished  to  retain  the  Psalms,  they  should  vote  for  other  per- 
sons. As  not  one  of  the  persons  objected  to  was  in  favor  of 
changing  our  Psalmody,  and  as  the  Board  of  Trustees  had  not  the 
power  to  do  it,  even  if  they  desired,  there  could  scarcely  be  a  greater 
untruth,  and  yet  in  this  way  many  were  deceived.  When  the 
election  took  place,  amidst  scenes  of  disorder  never  before  wit- 
nessed, and  which  we  trust  will  never  occur  again,  it  was  observed 
that  many  persons  voted  whose  right  to  do  so  was  questionable. 
The  legality  of  such  votes  was  very  properly  referred  to  the  Ses- 
sion and  Board  of  Trustees,  who  alone  were  competent  to  decide 
in  the  matter.  Meanwhile  it  was  the  duty  of  the  former  Board 
of  Trustees  to  retain  the  control  of  the  church  property.  They 
were  bound  to  deliver  it  to  their  lawfully  elected  successors,  and 
till  it  was  decided  who  were  their  lawfully  elected  successors  they 
were  bound  to  retain  its  custody.  Such  has  been  the  decision  of 
the  Chief  Justice,  and  such  would  be  the  decision  in  any  court  of 
law  whatever.  Let  it  be  observed  that  it  is  not  a  Minority  Board 
holding  the  church  as  against  a  Majority  Board,  but  the  Board 
which  now  holds  the  church,  is  a  Board  whose  election  has  not 
been  questioned,  and  a  majority  of  the  members  of  which  form  also 
a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Board  claiming  office  for  the  present 
year.  And  yet,  while  the  matter  was  undetermined,  before  any  deci- 
sion had  been  given,  or  could  have  been  given  by  the  Session  and 
Board  of  Trustees,  to  whom  the  subject  was  referred,  the  Board  of 
Trustees  claiming  to  be  elected,  hastily  and  rashly  rushed  into  a  law 


40 

suit,  against  their  brethren,  disregarding  even  the  fact  that  they  had 
thus  referred  the  matter  to  the  civil  law.  Without  waiting  for  its 
decision,  they  attempted  to  collect  pew-rents,  and  it  was  necessary 
to  restrain  them  by  an  injunction.  And  now,  as  the  Supreme 
Court  in  Banc,  by  which  alone  a  final  decision  can  be  given,  will 
not  meet  in  this  district  till  January  next,  the  suit  cannot  be  de- 
cided until  after  another  election  shall  have  taken  place,  and  thus, 
even  if  it  were  decided  in  their  favor,  they  could  gain  nothing,  as 
their  term  of  office  will  have  ended. 

And  now,  dear  brethren,  we  beg  you  to  consider  whether  the 
continuation  of  this  controversy  can  have  any  other  effect  than  to 
distract,  divide,  and  perhaps  destroy  our  congregation.  It  is  not 
needed  in  order  to  maintain  our  present  Psalmody — no  one  thinks  of 
changing  it.  It  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject  of  Union  with  other 
churches,  for  that  union  may  not  take  place  for  many  years,  and 
could  not  take  place  at  any  time  without  regular  ecclesiastical 
action. 

The  Session  has  waited  and  pleaded  with  the  leaders  in 
this  matter,  but  all  attempts  at  conciliation  have  failed.  A 
compromise  has  been  proposed  by  filling  as  they  would  desire 
the  vacancy  in  the  old  Board  of  Trustees,  arising  from  the  death 
of  our  dear  friend  and  brother,  Mr.  D.  W.  Denison.  It  is  refused. 
They  have  been  urged  to  abandon  a  fruitless  lawsuit,  which  can 
result  only  in  squandering  the  money  of  those  who  think  proper  to 
contribute  to  it.  Yet  this  lawsuit  is  persisted  in.  The.  offer  has 
been  made  of  an  amicable  division  of  the  congregation,  and  a  gen- 
erous proportion  of  the  value  of  the  church  property,  although  it 
is  well  known  that  the  amount  contributed  for  it,  by  those  who  are 
concerned  in  this  movement  is  but  small  compared  with  that  which 
those  who  sustain  the  old  Board  had  given.  But  all  has  been  of 
no  avail.  We  must  still  be  agitated  and  distracted;  our  peace 
disturbed;  our  spiritual  improvement  and  enjoyment  prevented. — 
And  for  what  purpose?  We  can  see  nothing  else  than  to  drive  off 
from  the  church  those  who  have  been  both  in  earlier  and  later 
years  its  best  supporters,  its  most  worthy  members ;  and  with  them 
myself.  Do  not  misunderstand  us,  dear  brethren ;  we  do  not  mean 
that  the  great  mass  of  the  adherents  of  this  movement  entertain 
any  such  design,  but  they  are  led,  by  false  representations,  to  take 


41 

sides  with  those  whose  conduct  can  produce  no  other  result  than 
this.  Outside  influences  have  been  at  work.  We  have  become 
obnoxious  to  some  of  our  brethren  because  we  conscientiously  op- 
posed them.  We  must  be  crushed,  and  discord  is  sown ;  dissension 
fomented;  strife  promoted;  our  congregation  is  to  be  divided  ;  our- 
selves to  be  driven  out.  Let  those  who  condemn  such  conduct 
separate  themselves  from  those  whose  course  can  have  no  other 
effect. 

With  these  things,  dear  brethren,  we  have  borne  in  the  hope 
that  forbearance  would  induce  a  change,  but  we  have  been  disap- 
pointed. The  congregation  is  distracted,  our  prayer-meetings  are 
disturbed,  the  services  of  the  Sabbath  interrupted,  our  communion 
cannot  be  held,  the  private  meetings  of  the  session  are  invaded. 
What  could  we  do?  We  have  borne  too  long.  That  venerable 
man  whose  sudden  death  we  all  so  much  regret,  one  so  amiable,  so 
kind,  so  meek,  so  upright,  so  intelligent,  so  judicious,  so  conscien- 
tious, so  eminently  good,  has  repeatedly  urged  the  Session  to  exer- 
cise the  discipline  of  the  church  in  regard  to  the  men  who  trouble  us. 
We  have  at  length  felt  obliged  to  do  so,  and  four  persons  have  been 
put  under  process,  of  whom  one,  Dr.  A.  S.  McMurray,  has  been 
suspended  according  to  the  direction  of  our  Book  of  Discipline 
"till  his  trial  comes  on  and  while  it  is  pending."  It  is  not  our 
intention  to  proceed  hastily,  but  to  all  who  may  appear  before  us, 
we  design  to  give  a  full,  fair,  and  open  trial,  and  were  these  per- 
sons now  or  at  any  time  to  indicate  a  disposition  to  cease  from  agi- 
tation or  disturbing  our  peace,  how  gladly  would  we  welcome  this, 
and  how  heartily  receive  them  again ! 

And  now,  dear  brethren,  we  appeal  to  you  to  sustain  the  con- 
stituted authorities  of  the  congregation.  We  have  not  been  impa- 
tient— we  have  not  been  rash — we  have  not  been  malevolent.  Re- 
gretting most  deeply  the  necessity  which  required  it,  we  have 
adopted  this  course  to  suppress  discord  and  to  promote  peaee.  If 
you  love  your  pastor,  if  you  have  any  respect  for  the  office-bearers 
of  the  church,  whether  living  or  departed — if  you  desire  peace — if 
you  wish  to  promote  the  interests  of  religion  and  the  glory  of  God 
our  Saviour — we  beseech  you  to  give  no  countenance  or  encour- 
agement to  any  designing  or  disorderly  men  who  may  endeavor  to 
keep  up  strife  and  discord  among  us.     If  they  ask  you  to  sign  any 


42 

paper  under  whatever  pretext  decline  to  do  so.     Deceived  as  many 
have  been  already,  let  none  be  deceived  ajrain. 

And  now,  brethren,  for  the  first  time  in  our  pastorate,  permit  us 
to  address  to  you  a  personal  appeal.  Xo  one  surely  can  feel  a 
deeper  interest  in  your  welfare  than  we  do.  Our  loved  and  hon- 
ored father  was  your  first  pastor,  and  continued  so  for  nearly  fifty 
years.  We  have  felt  as  if  he  had  left  to  us  in  you  a  most  precious 
trust,  which  we  should  deliver  unimpaired  to  the  one  who  may  succeed 
us.  How  can  we  bear  to  think  of  the  flock,  "the  beautiful  flock," 
for  which  he  labored  and  prayed  so  earnestly,  so  faithfully,  so  long, 
becoming  divided  and  destroyed?  Ourselves,  your  own  child  and 
offspring,  born  among  you,  with  you  in  the  sanctuary  from  infancy, 
a  pupil  in  your  Sabbath-school  the  first  day  it  was  organized,  after- 
wards a  teacher  there — permitted  more  than  thirty  years  ago  to 
sit  down  with  you  at  the  Saviour's  table  to  commemorate  His 
dying  love,  called  by  your  unanimous  voice  to  be  your  pastor  nearly 
twenty-five  years  ago,  about  half  our  life-time — ever  heard  by  you 
with  respect,  and  received  in  your  houses  with  affection — ever  sus- 
tained by  you  with  most  generous  kindness — ever  receiving  the 
greatest  forbearance  for  our  many,  many  deficiencies  and  faults — 
we  have  felt  that  you  were  "our  joy  and  our  crown."  And  shall 
unfounded  suspicions,  shall  any  misconception  of  motives  and  pur- 
poses destroy  our  confidence  and  love  ? — alienate  and  separate 
those  who  might  still  be  as  harmonious  and  as  peaceful  and  as 
happy  as  they  have  been  before!  May  God  forbid!  These  six 
things  the  Lord  hateth,  yea.  seven  are  an  abomination  unto  Him — 
"  a  proud  look,  a  lying  tongue,  hands  that  shed  innocent  blood,  an 
heart  that  deviseth  wicked  imaginations,  feet  that  be  swift  in  run- 
ning to  mischief,  a  false  witness  that  speaketh  lies,  and  he  that 
soweth  discord  among  brethren."  "Mark  those  who  cause  divis- 
ions and  avoid  them."  "Follow  peace  with  all  men  and  holiness, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  "  Let  us  follow  after  the 
things  which  make  for  peace  and  things  wherewith  one  may  edify 
another."  "And  now  may  the  God  of  Peace  which  brought  again 
from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in 
every  good  work,  to  do  his  will,  working  in  you  that  which  is  well 
pleasing  in  his  sight,  through  Jesus  Christ,,  to  whom  be  glory  for 
ever  and  ever.     Amen." 


43 

[No.   II.] 

STATEMENT  IN  REGARD  TO  PROTEST  AND  APPEAL 
OF  McMURRAY  AND  GUY. 

(To  be  Presented  to  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, IF  CALLED  FOR.) 
The  Session  of  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of  Phil- 
adelphia very  respectfully  submit  to  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  a  Protest  and  Ap- 
peal of  Dr.  A.  S.  McMurray  and  Mr.  R.  Guy,  which  we  have  in- 
formed these  brethren  we  have  declined  to  send  iip  to  your  vener- 
able body. 

1.  We  desire  that  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  it  is  by  no 
means  with  the  intention  of  depriving  these  brethren  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  being  heard  on  the  subject  before  your  venerable  court, 
as  we  have  informed  them,  that  they  may  accomplish  this  by  a  com- 
plaint against  us  in  these  premises. 

2.  The  subject  to  which  the  Protest  and  Appeal  relates  came 
before  us  by  a  vote  of  the  congregation  referring  it  to  us,  and  we 
have  considered  that  it  could  not  come  before  Presbytery  or  Synod 
without  a  similar  vote  referring  it  to  either  of  these  bodies.  We 
have  no  right  to  send  it  to  Presbytery  or  Synod  unless  the  congre- 
gation so  desire  and  direct. 

3.  The  subject  to  which  it  refers  is  not  properly  a  spiritual 
matter.  It  is  a  civil  transaction,  being  the  right  of  voting  under  a 
charter  from  the  government  of  the  State,  and  this  it  is  not  for 
any  ecclesiastical  court  to  decide  unless  it  be  voluntarily  submit- 
ted thereto  by  the  party  concerned. 

4.  As  neither  Presbytery  nor  Synod  could  assume  cognizance  of 
this  matter  without  the  congregation  having  referred  it  to  either, 
so  no  action  of  either  could  receive  the  least  attention  in  the  legal 
settlement  of  the  case. 

5.  As  we  do  not  consider  that  the  Session  had  any  right  to  act 
on  this  matter  unless  it  had  been  referred  to  them,  so  we  cannot 
refer  the  subject  to  the  Presbytery  or  the  Synod,  as  the  congrega- 
tion has  not  directed  this  to  be  done. 

The  Session  begs  leave  to  submit  to  Presbytery  some  remarks 
on  the  Protest  and  Appeal,  of  which  a  copy  is  appended. 


44 

I.  As  regards  the  first  reason,  viz.:  "  That  this  Session  has  no 
jurisdiction  in  this  case."  We  admit  that  we  had  no  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction,  and  we  affirm  that  we  did  not  assume  or  exer- 
cise any.     For 

1.  We  acted  in  this  matter  only  because  it  was  respectfully  re- 
ferred to  us  by  the  congregation,  and  that  it  was  thus  referred  we 
are  prepared  to  prove, 

(1.)  By  the  official  minutes  of  the  meeting  as  certified  to  us  by 
the  Secretary  thereof. 

(2.)  By  the  testimony  of  a  great  number  of  witnesses. 

(3.)  By  the  fact  that  the  congregation  adjourned  twice  to  receive 
our  report. 

Unless  the  congregation  had  referred  it  to  us  we  could  not  and 
would  not  have  acted  upon  it. 

2.  We  acted  in  this  matter  in  conjunction  with  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  who  have  no  ecclesiastical  power,  and  who  could  not  and 
did  not  unite  with  us  in  any  ecclesiastical  act. 

3.  Over  a  large  number  of  persons  on  the  list  of  voters  referred 
to  us  we  had  no  jurisdiction  whatever,  as  they  were  not  members 
of  the  Church,  and  we  certainly  were  not  so  ignorant  as  to  claim 
or  exercise  any  such  jurisdiction. 

4.  We  acted  in  this  matter,  therefore,  simply  as  arbitrators  or 
referees,  and  we  maintain  that  not  only  had  the  congregation  a  right 
to  refer  it  to  us  in  conjunction  with  the  Board  of  Trustees,  in  this 
character,  but  that  it  was  eminently  proper  to  do  so,  because 

(1.)  The  congregation  might  have  referred  it  to  any  other  per- 
sons of  intelligence  and  probity. 

(2.)  No  others  could  so  well  ascertain  the  facts  required  in  the  case, 
as  the  Session  and  Trustees  alone  possessed  the  necessary  docu- 
ments. 

(3.)  Our  Minutes  will  show  that  subjects  of  dispute  among  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  have  frequently  been  brought  before  us 
by  the  parties  concerned,  in  order  to  avoid  litigation  in  the  civil 
courts,  but  in  no  such  case  has  it  ever  been  supposed  that  our  ac- 
tion was  a  proper  subject  for  protest  or  appeal  to  a  higher  court. 

II.  The  second  reason,  "  Because  we  attempted  unlawfully  to 
strike  from  the  list,"  &c.  We  reply  that  the  election  had  been 
already  held  when  our  action  on  the  subject  was  invoked,  and  we 


45 

merely  expressed  the  opinion,  in  conjunction  with  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  that  such  persons,  to  the  number  of  127,  had  voted  with- 
out being  entitled  to  do  so.  We  did  not  prevent  any  of  these 
persons  from  voting,  or  strike  their  names  from  the  list  of  electors. 
No  list  of  electors  had  been  made,  and  had  it  been  made  it  would 
have  legally  included  many  more  than  those  who  actually  voted. 
And  in  regard  to  "  citation  and  trial,"  we  observe  that  no  citation 
or  trial  was  necessary  or  proper,  for 

(1.)  The  duty  of  the  Session  in  conjunction  with  the  Board 
was  simply  to  ascertain,  for  the  benefit  of  the  congregation  and 
in  reply  to  its  application,  what  persons  had  a  right  to  vote. 

(2.)  It  was  supposed  that  all  or  nearly  all  of  those  who  had 
voted  without  the  right  to  do  so,  had  done  this  from  a  mistake, 
and  no  charges  had  been  preferred  before  the  Session  against 
them. 

(3.)  Many  of  these  persons  were  not  members  of  the  church  and 
not- under  our  jurisdiction,  nor  subject  to  citation  from  us  or  trial 
before  us. 

III.  The  third  reason,  "Because  no  person  can  be  deprived," 
&c.  "We  again  observe  that  as  the  election  had  already  taken 
place,  we  did  not  deprive  any  person  of  the  right  of  voting,  but 
merely  in  conjunction  with  the  Trustees  declared  our  opinion  that 
such  persons  as  we  enumerated  had  voted  without  a  right.  As  the 
act  was  already  performed  no  process  of  law  could  prevent  the 
performance  of  it,  and  we  cannot  see  how  any  process  of  law  could 
affect  it.  We  gave  our  opinion  with  impartiality,  integrity,  great 
care  and  in  the  fear  of  God. 

IV.  The  fourth  reason,  "Withholding  names,"  &c.  We  ob- 
serve, 

1.  The  Session  expressly  stated  that  they  were  ready  to  satisfy 
any  legitimate  inquiry,  and  all  persons  seeking  information  have 
been  or  would  be  informed. 

2.  As  it  was  believed  that  most  of  those  on  the  list  of  persons  not 
entitled  to  vote  had  voted  without  any  idea  that  they  had  not 
a  right,  it  was  considered  improper  to  expose  them  to  public  re- 
mark and  perhaps  misrepresentation,  by  announcing  their  names 
at  the  congregational  meeting. 


46 

V.  The  fifth  reason,  "  These  persons  might  have  been  able  to 
give,"  &c. 

(1.)  Nothing  which  any  of  these  persons  might  do  after  the 
election  could  possibly  constitute  them  electors  if  they  were  not  so 
at  or  before  that  time. 

(2.)  The  Session  in  conjunction  with  the  Board  of  Trustees 
alone  possessed  the  information  necessary  to  decide  the  matter. 

(3.)  Many  of  these  persons  were  not  amenable  to  the  Session 
and  of  some  who  voted,  being  neither  members  nor  pew-holders, 
both  the  Session  and  Trustees  have  been  and  continue  to  be  utterly 
ignorant. 

VI.  and  VII.  The  sixth  reason,  "Because  it  is,"  &c.  The 
seventh  reason,  "Because,"  &c.     We  observe, 

1.  That  the  Board  of  Trustees  now  holding  possession  of  the 
church  property  and  which  is  recognized  by  the  pastor  and  Session, 
has  not  been  contesting  the  election,  but  certain  other  persons 
claiming  to  have  been  elected,  but  whose  election  was  submitted  to 
the  Session  and  Trustees  by  the  congregation.  Nor  is  the  Board 
which  holds  possession  of  the  church  to  be  considered  as  a  minority 
Board  holding  it  against  a  majority  Board,  but  it  is  the  old  Board 
whose  election  has  never  been  disputed,  and  of  which  a  majority 
of  the  members  form  also  a  majority  of  the  Board  claiming  to  have 
been  elected ;  and  it  further  would  certainly  have  been  wrong  for 
the  Board  holding  the  church  to  surrender  the  possession  of  it  to 
any  other  than  its  legitimately  elected  successors,  and  till  it  should 
be  ascertained  who  were  its  legitimate  successors  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  former  Board  to  retain  the  property.  It  is  also  to  be  understood 
that  those  who  are  represented  as  the  contestants  in  this  Protest 
and  Appeal  are  not  the  persons  who  have  initiated  and  continued 
a  vexatious  law-suit,  but  that  the  persons  who  are  really  the  con- 
testants and  have  commenced  this  suit  are  the  persons  whose  claim 
to  be  Trustees  is  maintained  by  these  appellants. 

2.  With  the  conduct  of  those  who  prepared  and  distributed  the 
printed  ticket  and  circular  this  Session  has  nothing  to  do,  but  no 
act  of  these  persons  could  be  supposed  to  determine  or  even  to  re- 
cognize the  right  and  duty  of  these  to  whom  the  circular  was  sent 
to  vote,  for  the  persons  who  sent  the  circular  might  send  to  any 
they  pleased,  and  probably  sent  it  to  persons  whom  they  knew  not 


47 

to  be  voters.  If  sending  a  ticket  and  circular  to  any  persons  gives 
them  a  right  to  vote,  it  would  be  a  very  easy  thing  to  manufacture 
voters. 

3.  The  Session  had  no  concern  in  this  matter.  Several  of  the 
members  of  session  never  saw  either  circular  or  ticket  until  they 
received  it  by  the  post,  and  the  only  member  of  Session  who  signed 
the  circular  was  our  venerable  and  beloved  Father,  Mr.  Henry 
Sterling,  who  has  so  recently  entered  into  his  heavenly  rest,  and 
whose  previous  character  for  integrity,  intelligence,  mildness, 
and  moderation  might  have  shielded  him  from  the  reproach  of 
having  "tempted  others  to  do  what  was  improper  and  unlawful." 

Signed  by  authority  of  the  Session. 

T.  W.  J.  WYLIE,  Moderator. 

James  Grant,  Asst.  Clerk. 


[No.  III.] 

COMPARATIVE  STATEMENT  OF  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO 
BUILDING  FUND,  ETC. 

The  entire  cost  of  the  Church  building  and  ground 
on  Broad  Street  was  $65,720.23 

Contributed  as  follows : 

From  proceeds  sale  of  old  church,  $12,883.25 

Subscriptions  by  members  of  congrega- 
tion, 39,951.33 
Collected  from  friends  by  members,            12,885.65 

65,720.23 


Of  the  above  amount  the  signers  of  the 
Remonstrance  contributed  4,583.86 

Collected  by  them  from  their  friends,  103.00 


4,686.86 


Showing  that  the  signers  of  the  Remonstrance  con- 
tributed only  7 J-  per  cent,  of  the  total  cost,  or  8|  per 


48 


cent,  of  the  actual  amount  subscribed  and  collected  to- 
wards the  erection  of  the  new  church. 

The  total  amount  of  Pew  Rent  collected  for  1867  was 
The  amount  of  Pew  Rent  paid  by  the  signers  of  the 
Remonstrance  for  1867  was 

Showing  that  the  signers  of  the  Remonstrance  paid 
only  25J  per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount  received. 


85,214.02 
1,319.92 


The  amount  contributed  by  the  congregation  for  Mis- 
sionary purposes  during  the  Synodical  Year  1867-68  was  §1,279.84 

Of  this  sum  the  signers  to  the  Remonstrance 
have  contributed,  so  far  as  ascertained,  by  direct 
subscriptions  §42.50 

Estimating  as  the  same  in  amount  their  contribu- 
tions in  Sabbath  School  and  Monthly  Concert 
collections 


42.50 


It  thus  appears  that  their  contributions  in  all  are  6f 
per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount  contributed  for  Missionary 
purposes  by  the  congregation  during  the  year  ending 
May,  1868. 


85.00 


The  number  of  persons  in  full  communion  and  regular  standing 
in  the  First  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  January 
1,  1868,  was  eight  hundred  and  twenty-five.  The  number  of  sig- 
natures to  the  Remonstrance,  deducting  those  improperly  attached 
to  it,  is  two  hundred  and  eleven,  or  25J  per  cent,  of  the  entire 
membership.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  not  one  person  con- 
nected with  the  original  congregation,  now  surviving,  and  not  a 
single  representative  of  any  family  belonging  to  it,  has  signed  the 
remonstrance.    . 


Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 


